Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2931 (MAD)

O. K. Vijayakumar v. Smt. T. Kavitha & Another

2009-08-04

G.RAJASURIA

body2009
Judgment 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 112. 2006 passed by the Family Court, Coimbatore, in M.C.No.93 of 2005, this criminal revision case is focused. 2. Compendiously and precisely, the facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case would run thus: a) The respondents herein filed the M.C.No.93 of 2005 as against the revision petitioner herein seeking maintenance. Whereupon the revision petitioner entered appearance and contested the matter. b) During enquiry, the first respondent herein examined herself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. The revision petitioner examined himself as R.W.1 along with R.W.2 and Exs.R1 to R6 were marked. c) Ultimately, the Family Court awarded maintenance in a sum of Rs.1000/- per month in favour of the first respondent, Rs.750/- per month in favour of the second respondent herein, payable by the revision petitioner. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Family Court, this revision is focused on various grounds, the gist and kernal of them would run thus:- The lower Court failed to take into account the evidence available on record that it was the wife who was responsible for the rift in the matrimonial relationship and she only lodged a false compliant as against the revision petitioner and his family members and got him detained them in jail for six days. In such a case, the Family Court was not justified in mulcting the revision petitioner with the liability to pay maintenance. However, the maintenance awarded is on the higher side. 4. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non application of law in awarding the maintenance and whether there is any inequity in awarding the quantum of maintenance. 5. Despite printing the names of respondents, none appeared. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the Family Court without analysing as to who is responsible for the cleavage in the matrimonial relationship between the revision petitioner and the first respondent, simply awarded maintenance. 6. A plain reading of the judgment of the Family Court as well as the records would exemplify and disclose that the revision petitioner and the first respondent got married on 11. 2002, as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. During their wed lock, they gave birth to R2 on 30.8.2003. 6. A plain reading of the judgment of the Family Court as well as the records would exemplify and disclose that the revision petitioner and the first respondent got married on 11. 2002, as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. During their wed lock, they gave birth to R2 on 30.8.2003. According to R1, there was dowry harassment on the part of the revision petitioner and in connection with that, a criminal case also emerged, which is still pending. The Family Court correctly held that only in the criminal Court, the concerned disputes would be decided. 7. It is also a well settled proposition that when the parties are locked up in criminal litigation, only before the criminal Court those contentious issues could be decided and adjudged. Furthermore, in the summary proceedings under Section 125 of Cr,.P.C., the larger issues relating to who is absolutely responsible for the rift in the matrimonial relationship could not be decided. 8. So far the summary proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, the Court has to see whether there is negligence on the part of the husband in maintaining the wife and child. No doubt, the husband would say that he was not responsible for the rift, as the wife, on her own accord, left the matrimonial home. However, the Family Court felt that there is no substance, prima facie, in the contention of the revision petitioner. Without any rhyme or reason R1 could have no reason to live away from the husband and seek for maintenance. Considering the fact that the Family Court, on factual basis arrived at the conclusion that the husband has to pay maintenance, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for interference in the revision. 9. At this juncture, my mind is redolent and reminiscent of the following decisions of the Honble Apex Court: (i) 2002(6) SCC 650 -Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias B.P. Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and another; an excerpt from it would run thus: "13. The instant case is not one where any such illegality was committed by the trial court. In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The instant case is not one where any such illegality was committed by the trial court. In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. 14. We are, therefore, satisfied that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of acquittal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction at the instance of the informant. It may be that the High Court on appreciation of the evidence on record may reach a conclusion different from that of the trial court. But that by itself is no justification for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a judgment of acquittal. We cannot say that the judgment of the trial court in the instant case was perverse. No defect of procedure has been pointed out. There was also no improper acceptance or rejection of evidence nor was there any defect of procedure or illegality in the conduct of the trial vitiating the trial itself. (ii) 2005 Supreme Court Cases (cri) 276 – Sathyajit Banerjee and Others vs. State of W.B. and others, an excerpt from it would run thus: "22. The cases cited by the learned counsel show the settled legal position that the revisional jurisdiction, at the instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect of procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice." A bare perusal of the said decisions would demonstrate that the revisional court is not expected to interfere with the finding given by the court below and if there is no perversity or non-application of law on the part of the court below, the question of revisional court interfering with the findings would arise. 10. Regarding quantum is concerned, the Family Court in the penultimate paragraph elaborately dealt with the fact that the revision petitioner is earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-per month. 10. Regarding quantum is concerned, the Family Court in the penultimate paragraph elaborately dealt with the fact that the revision petitioner is earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-per month. Such a finding of fact was arrived at after considering the balance-sheet and other particulars furnished by the revision petitioner himself. 11. It appears, the revision petitioner is printing course materials for teaching computer science. In such a case, the respondents 1 and 2, who are the wife and child of such an individual is entitled to life in commensurate with his status. The sum of Rs.1000/-awarded in favour of the first respondent would mean that per day a sum of Rs.30/- was awarded in her favour and per month it would come to Rs.900/-. Towards medical expenses, transport expenses and other unforeseen expenses, she would require at least a sum of Rs.100/- per month. As such, the total comes to Rs.1000/- per month, which amount only was awarded by the Family Court, warranting no interference. 12. Similarly, for the child Rs.750/- was awarded, which means per day it comes to Rs.25/-. It is a common or garden principle that no child could be brought up, in the present day cost of living, without even spending a sum of Rs.25/- per day. Hence, I could see no perversity or non-application of law in awarding such maintenance by the lower Court. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed.