Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 560 (MAD)

Gomathi v. Raja

2015-02-02

M.SATHYANARAYANAN

body2015
JUDGMENT M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J. 1. The first petitioner is the wife of the respondent and the second petitioner is the minor son of the respondent and both of them filed M.C. No. 16 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nilakkottai, claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. and Rs. 5,000/- p.m., respectively. 2. The petitioners, pending disposal of the said Maintenance Case, filed Crl. M.P. No. 7780 of 2014 under Section 125(2) Cr. P.C., praying for interim maintenance contending that 01.05.2013 onwards, the first petitioner along with her minor son, is residing in her parental home and though the respondent is employed in abroad and is earning a sum of Rs. 70,000/- p.m., has never agreed to maintain the petitioners. 3. It is further pleaded that the respondent has pledged the jewels of the first petitioner herein and bought a plot in the name of his father and since the petitioners are unable to maintain themselves, they filed the said petition, claiming interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- p.m., and Rs. 5,000/- p.m., respectively. 4. The said petition was opposed by the respondent by filing a counter that the contentions put forth are similar that of the stand taken by them in the main case and he would further state that the first petitioner is not knowing the difficulties of expatriate labour worked in Gulf countries. In any event, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- p.m., claimed by way of interim maintenance to the first petitioner is very excessive and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. During the course of enquiry, no oral evidence was let in and no documentary evidence was marked on behalf of the petitioners. On the side of the respondent, no witnesses were examined, but Ex.R.1-Identity Card issued by Meenakshi Mission Hospital to the first petitioner and Ex.R.2-Photographs series, were marked. 6. The lower Court found that since Ex.R.1 would disclose that the first petitioner is gainfully employed and insofar as the minor second petitioner/son is concerned, a case has not been made out and unless interim maintenance is paid, the first petitioner cannot maintain the second respondent and dismissed the petition for interim maintenance, vide order dated 03.09.2014 and challenging the legality of the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 7. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that no doubt, the first respondent was employed in the Meenakshi Mission Hospital and at the time of filing of the petition, she was not at all employed and on account of the attitude exhibited by the respondent, she along with her minor son, was forced to stay in the parental home and as it may take some time for the disposal of the main case, she would pray for interim maintenance and the lower Court, without taking into consideration the relevant aspects, has erroneously dismissed the petition and in fact, dealt with the merits of the main case itself and prayed for setting aside the same. 8. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that both the prayer in the main petition as well as in the petition for interim maintenance are one and the same and that the lower Court found that the said issue can be thrashed out during the course of the trial and accordingly, rightly dismissed the petition for interim maintenance and hence, prayed for the dismissal of this revision. 9. This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the typed set of documents. 10. No doubt, the petitioners, in the main case as well as in the petition for interim maintenance, have claimed the very same amount. The trial Court, while disposing of the petition for interim maintenance, has taken into consideration Exs.R.1 and R.2 and the first petitioner has seriously disputed the authenticity of Ex.R.1 for the reason that the trial Court has gone into the legality of Exs.R.1 and R.2 in extenso and chose to give a finding as if it is deciding the main Maintenance Case itself. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the procedure adopted by the lower Court is not warranted in the present facts and circumstances of case. However, this Court is of the view that the point urged by the revision petitioners can be adjudicated only after a full-fledged trial of the case in M.C. No. 16 of 2014. Therefore, it is fit and proper to expedite the disposal of the main case. 12. However, this Court is of the view that the point urged by the revision petitioners can be adjudicated only after a full-fledged trial of the case in M.C. No. 16 of 2014. Therefore, it is fit and proper to expedite the disposal of the main case. 12. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and the lower Court is directed to give utmost priority for the disposal of M.C. No. 16 of 2014 and both the petitioners as well as the respondent shall extend their maximum co-operation to the lower Court to dispose of the case at an early date. The lower Court shall adjudicate and dispose of M.C. No. 16 of 2014 pending on it's file on or before 30.04.2015. It is made clear that the findings rendered by the lower Court while dismissing the petition for interim maintenance in Crl. M.P. No. 7780 of 2014 in M.C. No. 16 of 2014, shall not weigh in the mind of the lower Court while disposing of the main case as it has to adjudicate the issues only based on the evidence let in by the parties before it.