Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2994 (MAD)

U. N. Ravivarma v. Sukirtha

2010-07-21

T.SUDANTHIRAM

body2010
Judgment :- 1. The Revision Petitioner herein is the father of the Respondents 2 and 3. Respondents 2 and 3 who are minors are represented by their mother, First Respondent herein. The First Respondent filed a Petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, under Section 125, Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. The Petitioner herein also appeared and filed a Counter. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate passed an interim order directing the Petitioner to pay interim maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/-for Respondents 2 and 3 every month till the disposal of the main Petition. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, the Petitioner herein preferred this Revision Petition. 2. Notice was ordered to the Respondents and with consent of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents, the Revision Petition is now heard and disposed of. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that after Counter being filed by the Petitioner before the Trial Court, the Petitioner was not heard and even without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner to make his submissions, the learned Magistrate himself passed an order granting interim maintenance. The Principle of Natural Justice has been violated in this case. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that under the Guardian and Wards Act, a Petition is pending before the concerned Court and the custody Application filed by the Petitioner herein also is pending. Till the said Application is disposed of, the Petitioner need not pay any maintenance to the Respondents 2 and 3. 4. Per Contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is only an interim order and as such no Revision it maintainable. The learned Counsel for the Respondents further submitted that the minor children should not be made to suffer and the Respondents 2 and 3 are studying 3rd and 5th standard. 5. This Court considered the submissions made by the parties and perused the records. After the Petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. being filed by the First Respondent herein, the Petitioner herein also filed his Counter dated 10.06.2010. On the very same day, the learned Judicial Magistrate also passed an interim order directing the Petitioner herein to pay the interim maintenance to the Respondents 2 and 3 who are minor children of the Petitioner. After the Petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. being filed by the First Respondent herein, the Petitioner herein also filed his Counter dated 10.06.2010. On the very same day, the learned Judicial Magistrate also passed an interim order directing the Petitioner herein to pay the interim maintenance to the Respondents 2 and 3 who are minor children of the Petitioner. The learned Magistrate has not passed any order directing the Petitioner to pay any interim maintenance amount to the First Respondent/wife of the Petitioner herein. 6. It is observed in the order of the learned Magistrate, “Both are present. Counter filed. The Respondent is directed to pay interim maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner every month.” On reading this order, it appears that the learned Magistrate has not heard the oral arguments of the parties. Even though it is an interim order, it is the duty of the learned Magistrate to hear the parties or their respective Counsel before passing any interim order. 7. Though the learned Magistrate while passing the interim order of maintenance has violated the Principle of Natural Justice, this Court now perused the copy of the Petition and Counter and heard the Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the Respondents. The Trial Court has not granted maintenance to the wife of the Petitioner, but granted interim maintenance only to chi9ldren and that too, the amount is only Rs.2,000 per month. Even as per the Counter filed by the Petitioner herein before the Trial Court, he is getting an average salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. Therefore, in the said circumstance, the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the Petitioner to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/- to the minor children need not be set aside by this Court. The pendency of the Custody Application filed by the Petitioner before the Civil Court is not a ground for rejecting either Interim Maintenance or maintenance to the minor children. 8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed.