Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2058 (MAD)

M. Govindaraj v. G. Deepa

2014-07-10

C.S.KARNAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. The petitioner / respondent has preferred the present revision against the order passed in M.C.No.118 of 2008, on the file of the Family Judge, Coimbatore. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioners, who are the wife and minor children of the respondent have filed the claim in M.C.No.118 of 2008, claiming monthly maintenance of a sum of Rs.4,000/- and Rs.1,500/-respectively from the respondent. It was submitted that the first petitioner and respondent married each other on 09.11.1999, at Lions Club Wedding Hall, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District, as per Hindu Rites and Customs. At the time of wedding, the parents of the first petitioner had given sreedhana of 40 sovereigns of gold jewellery and household articles as well as dowry of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent. It was submitted that the first petitioner and the respondent led their marital life in the house of the sisters of the respondent. Out of wedlock, a male child was born to them on 25.02.2001 and he was named as Rahul. The respondent, was working as a driver at Azhakendra Automobiles Firm, Coimbatore. As the respondent had the habit of drinking liquor, he used to come home in a drunken state and used to beat the first petitioner. The sisters of the respondent, viz., Shanthamani, Sakunthala and Baghyalakshmi and their husbands, viz, Karuppusami, Ponnusami and Arusami also used to beat her and demanded her to get dowry. The first petitioner, unable to bear the torture of the respondent and his family members gave a complaint before the Coimbatore Central All Womens Police Station. Based on her complaint, the police conducted enquiry with the respondent and his family members and on their assurance that they would not torture her and on the assurance given by the respondent that he would lead his life in a normal manner with her, she did not press the complaint. Subsequently, the first petitioner and the respondent led their married life at a house situated at Maiyakannan Road, Saibaba Colony, Kumbakonampudur, Coimbatore. Subsequently, the respondent, demanded the first petitioner to get Rs.4,00,000/-from her father to get an indica car, so that he could use it as a tourist taxi and lead his life. Subsequently, the first petitioner and the respondent led their married life at a house situated at Maiyakannan Road, Saibaba Colony, Kumbakonampudur, Coimbatore. Subsequently, the respondent, demanded the first petitioner to get Rs.4,00,000/-from her father to get an indica car, so that he could use it as a tourist taxi and lead his life. When the first petitioner informed her father about the demand made by her husband and the torture being undergone by her, her father had taken his savings of Rs.1,00,000/-and given it to the respondent on 03.03.2008. It was submitted that even after this, the respondent and his family members continued to torture the first petitioner. Subsequently, the first petitioner had come to know that the respondent had married another woman named as Sakunthala, who is the relative of the husband of the sister of the respondent. It was submitted that the respondent has a girl born out of his relationship with the said Sakunthala and the girl is named as baby. It was submitted that the said Sakunthala is working as Accountant at Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. It was submitted that the first petitioner had filed a complaint against the respondent at the Palladam All Womens Police Station on 02.04.2008 and the complaint has been taken on file as Crime No.6 of 2008 under Section 498A and 494 of IPC. It was submitted that the first and second petitioner are presently staying at the house of the parents of the first petitioner. As the first petitioner is unemployed, she is running her life with the help extended by her parents and relatives. It was submitted that the respondent is running a tourist taxi and earning Rs.10,000/-per month. Hence, the petitioners have prayed for grant of Rs.5,500/- per month as monthly maintenance from the respondent. 3. The respondent in his counter has denied the allegations in the complaint that he and his sisters had tortured the first petitioner and demanded dowry. The allegation that 40 sovereigns of gold and Rs.50,000/- was given to this respondent as dowry was also not admitted. It was submitted that on 23.02.2004, the first petitioner and her family members had demanded him to transfer his property lying in the name of the mother of this respondent to the petitioner and had used abusive language and assaulted him. It was submitted that on 23.02.2004, the first petitioner and her family members had demanded him to transfer his property lying in the name of the mother of this respondent to the petitioner and had used abusive language and assaulted him. Hence, he had given a complaint against the first petitioner, her brother and parents at the B3 Police Station and the case was registered against them in Crime No.261 of 2004 under Section 75 of CB Act and 323 of IPC and all of them had been punished by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore. As this respondent had filed a case against the petitioner and her family members, the petitioner, on the instigation of her family members had lodged a false complaint against him and his sisters and their husband at the Coimbatore All Women Wing Police Station. The averments in the claim that this respondent had demanded Rs.4,00,000/- from the parents of the petitioner and that the father of the petitioner had given Rs.1,00,000/- to him was also not admitted. The averments in the claim that he had married a woman named as Sakunthala was also not admitted. It was submitted that this respondent is working as a driver and he does not have any property. It was submitted that this respondent wants to lead his life with the first and second petitioners and hence, it was prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. The learned Family Court Judge had framed two issues for consideration in the case, viz., "(i) Are the petitioners entitled to get maintenance? If so, what is the quantum of maintenance they are entitled to get? (ii) To what other relief are the petitioners entitled to get?" 5. On the petitioners side, the first petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and 7 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7, viz., Ex.P1-wedding invitation, Ex.P2-copy of birth certificate of second petitioner, Ex.P3-copy of letter received from Electricity Board after filing an application under Right to Information Act, Ex.P4-copy of birth certificate of girl named Baby, who was born to the respondent and one Sakunthala, Ex.P5-copy of F.I.R., Ex.P6-school receipts of second petitioner and Ex.P7-visiting card. On the respondent's side, no witness, no documents. 6. P.W.1, the first petitioner had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements contained in her complaint. On the respondent's side, no witness, no documents. 6. P.W.1, the first petitioner had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements contained in her complaint. She further deposed that the respondent, without getting a divorce and without her knowledge, had married one Sakunthala, who was a relative of his sister's husband and that he is leading his life with the said Sakunthala. She deposed that the said Sakunthala was working at TNEB and that a girl had been born to them. She deposed that she had given a complaint regarding the second marriage of her husband at the Palladam Police Station and that a case has been registered as Crime No.6 of 2008, and in support of her evidence, she had marked Exs.P1 to P7. 7. The learned Family Court Judge, on scrutiny of Ex.P3, observed that the name of the husband of the said Sakunthala had been mentioned as M.Govindaraj. It was further observed that in the connected nomination papers, the name of the girl of the said Sakunthala has been mentioned as legal-heir. It has further been mentioned in the letter marked as Ex.P3, that no legal action had been taken on the said Sakunthala as the occurrence of marriage has not been entered in the service records of Sakunthala. On scrutiny of Ex.P3 and P4, the learned Judge observed that the girl named as baby had been born to the respondent and the said Sakunthala. Hence, the learned Judge on observing that the respondent is living with the said Sakunthala held that the petitioner is entitled to lead her life separately. The learned Judge further observed that the respondent had not produced any documentary evidence to prove his contention that he had given a complaint against the first petitioner, her brother and parents at the B3 Police Station and the case was registered against them in Crime No.261 of 2004 under Section 75 of CB Act and 323 of IPC and all of them had been punished by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore.. The learned Judge on considering that the respondent had not denied that he was working as a driver and has a tourist car held that the monthly income of the respondent could be taken as Rs.10,000/-. The learned Judge on perusal of Ex.P6, observed that the monthly school fees paid for the education of the second petitioner was Rs.1,000/-. The learned Judge on considering that the respondent had not denied that he was working as a driver and has a tourist car held that the monthly income of the respondent could be taken as Rs.10,000/-. The learned Judge on perusal of Ex.P6, observed that the monthly school fees paid for the education of the second petitioner was Rs.1,000/-. Hence, the learned Judge, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-as monthly maintenance to the first petitioner and a sum of Rs.500/- as monthly maintenance to the second petitioner and directed the respondent to pay the said sum from the date of filing the petition and also directed the respondent to pay the monthly maintenance on or before 10th of every English calendar month. 8. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, the respondent has preferred the present revision. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended in his grounds of revision that the trial Court failed to take note of the fact that the first respondent and her family members have been found guilty in the complaint preferred by the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore and to counter the same, the first respondent has come forward with the present case and also filed a false criminal case, now pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore. It was contended that the learned Family Court Judge ought to have seen that the petitioner herein was afforded only two opportunities and both of the dates being declared holidays, the trial Court should have granted some more time to examine his witnesses and failure to grant time has greatly prejudiced the petitioner. It was contended that the findings of the learned Family Judge that the petitioner has not rebutted Exs.P3 and P4 is perverse more so, when the petitioner has categorically denied the same in his counter statement and an opportunity was not afforded to him to prove his case. It was contended that the findings of the Family Court Judge that merely because the name of the petitioner and the name of the husband of Sakunthala are one and the same, the petitioner herein has been held as the husband of the said Sakunthala which prima-facie is illegal, unheard of and warrants interference of this Court. It was contended that the findings of the Family Court Judge that merely because the name of the petitioner and the name of the husband of Sakunthala are one and the same, the petitioner herein has been held as the husband of the said Sakunthala which prima-facie is illegal, unheard of and warrants interference of this Court. It was also contended that the petitioner has no job and no earnings and hence, the order of maintenance to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/-per month to the respondents, is excessive. Hence, it was prayed to set-aside the order passed by the Family Court Judge, Coimbatore. 10. The highly competent counsel, Mr.G.B.Saravanabhavan appearing for the respondent submits that it is an admitted fact that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner herein and the first respondent as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Out of the said wedlock, the second respondent herein was born on 25.02.2001. Now, the second respondent is aged about 11 years and he is a school going boy. Further, the petitioner and his family members have jointly tortured the first respondent herein demanding dowry. Hence, she had left the matrimonial home. Subsequently, the petitioner had married another woman named as Sakunthala. The respondent had also filed a criminal complaint before the All Women Wing Police Station, Palladam, against the revision petitioner demanding dowry and for bigamy. Further, the quantum of monthly maintenance had not been granted adequately to the respondents herein. The petitioner is operating a tourist car and earning Rs.10,000/-per month approximately and as such, he could very well pay the maintenance prayed for by the respondents. 11. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent and on perusing the revision grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at for granting maintenance to the respondents herein. Further, the learned Magistrate had framed necessary issues and assessed the monthly maintenance to the respondents after observing that the petitioner herein is running a tourist taxi and he could easily get a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-, which is appropriate in the instant case. Therefore, the above revision is dismissed. 12. Further, the learned Magistrate had framed necessary issues and assessed the monthly maintenance to the respondents after observing that the petitioner herein is running a tourist taxi and he could easily get a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-, which is appropriate in the instant case. Therefore, the above revision is dismissed. 12. This Court directs the petitioner herein to deposit the entire arrears of maintenance before the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order, subject to deduction of earlier deposits made by the petitioner, if any, as per this Court's earlier order. After such a deposit has been made, the first respondent herein / wife is at liberty to withdraw the said amount, after filing a Memo. This Court further directs the revision petitioner to pay the monthly maintenance, as per the trial Court's order, regularly, on or before 10th of every English calendar month. 13. In the result, the above revision is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in M.C.No.118 of 2008, on the file of the Family Judge, Coimbatore, dated 04.11.2009 is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.