Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 214 (MAD)

Alex Pandiyan v. Divya

2016-01-20

M.VENUGOPAL

body2016
ORDER : 1. The Revision Petitioner has focused the present Criminal Revision Petition before this Court as against the order dated 30.10.2015 in Cr.M.P.No.3181 of 2015 in M.C.No.11 of 2015 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatti, Madurai District. 2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatti, while passing the impugned order in Cr.M.P.No.3181 of 2015 (filed by the Respondent/Wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.) on 30.10.2015, had passed an order directing the Respondent (Revision Petitioner/Husband) to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/-per month to the Respondent/Wife (Petitioner/Wife) as an interim maintenance till the main petition coming to an end and the said payment was to be paid before 5th of every English month either directly or through Bank. 3. Being aggrieved against the order dated 30.10.2015 in Cr.M.P.No.3181 of 2015 (filed by the Respondent/Wife as Petitioner), the Revision Petitioner/Husband has projected the instant Criminal Revision Petition before this Court basically contending that the impugned order granting of interim maintenance is against Law, because of the reason that the Revision Petitioner/Husband is not doing any work and that the Respondent/Wife had not proved his salary. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner urges before this Court that the impugned order of interim maintenance passed by the trial Court is an illegal, erroneous and an invalid one, because of the simple reason that the same is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. According to the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Husband, the trial Court had not taken into account the plea/request of the Revision Petitioner that the marriage between the Revision Petitioner/Husband and the Respondent/Wife was already dissolved in the presence of Panchayat and both family members and that the Cr.M.P.No.3181 of 2015 is p e r s e not maintainable in Law. 6. Yet another stand of the Revision Petitioner is that after dissolving the marriage between the Revision petitioner and the Respondent/wife, the entire articles of the Respondent/Wife was given to her. 7. It is also represented on behalf of the Revision Petitioner/Husband that after dissolution of marriage between the Revision Petitioner and the Respondent/Wife, one year later, the Respondent/Wife had filed Cr.M.P.No.3181 of 2015 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance from the Revision Petitioner/Husband and the said fact was not taken into account by the trial Court, at the time of passing of the impugned docket order dated 30.10.2015 in Cr.M.P.No.3181 of 2015. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Husband submits that the bankers cheque for Rs.4,500/- dated 13.01.2016 was issued in the name of Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatti and the said sum of Rs.4,500/- represents the interim maintenance amount ordered by the trial Court. 8. At this stage, this Court has perused the contents of copy of M.C.No.11 of 2015 (filed by the Respondent) before the trial Court, whereby and whereunder it is among other things mentioned that the Revision Petitioner/Husband (Respondent) had not taken any endeavour to live with the Respondent/Wife jointly and also that the Revision Petitioner/Husband earns an income of Rs.20,000/- per month as driver and also by doing agriculture in 5 acres land, he obtains an income of Rs.30,000/- per month and also that he is indulging in money lending business and through that business, he earns a sum of Rs.15,000/- and is in good state of affairs with sound body and health. Also, the Respondent/Wife in M.C.No.11 of 2015 on the file of the trial Court had clearly averred that the Revision Petitioner/Husband had married one Muthulakshmi, D/o. Karuppiah, K.Paraipatti for the second time and that the Revision Petitioner/Husband (Respondent) without any justifiable reason or cause is deliberately neglecting her and also refused to maintain her. In fact, the Respondent/Wife had claimed a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards monthly maintenance from the Revision Petitioner/Husband. 9. Before the trial Court, the Revision Petitioner/Husband had filed a detailed counter to M.C.No.11 of 2015 inter-alia stating that on 24.11.2013, the Respondent/Wife, based on the caste custom, at the place of Respondent/Wife and in the presence of parents and relatives, has handed over the Mangal Sutra (Thali) and wrote a divorce deed in which the petitioner, respondent, parents and two village elders had signed and accordingly, the marriage with the Respondent/Wife came to an end. 10. Apart from that, the Revision Petitioner/Husband had also taken a stand in the counter to Cr.M.P.No.3181 of 2015 (on the file of trial Court) that presently he has no scope for any employment and living under the support of his parents and that he is working as driver and from that avocation, earns an income etc. 11. 10. Apart from that, the Revision Petitioner/Husband had also taken a stand in the counter to Cr.M.P.No.3181 of 2015 (on the file of trial Court) that presently he has no scope for any employment and living under the support of his parents and that he is working as driver and from that avocation, earns an income etc. 11. When that be the fact situation, it comes to be known that in Cr.M.P.No.3181 of 2015 (filed by the Respondent/Wife for interim maintenance), the trial Court had passed a docket order, on 30.10.2015, to the effect that the Revision Petitioner/Husband till the disposal of main M.C.No.11 of 2015 as an interim maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month should pay to the Respondent/Wife etc. The said order, in the considered opinion of this Court, is a cryptic one, besides the same is not a speaking order on merits. It is not clear as to how the trial Court had awarded a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month as interim maintenance to the Respondent/Wife, the same being payable by the Revision Petitioner/Husband. Suffice it for this Court to point out that the impugned order dated 30.10.2015 in Cr.M.P.No.3181 of 2015 smacks of outline of process of reasoning. In fact, the trial Court has not weighed prosandcons of the merits of the matter, but passed the impugned order by not ascribing necessary qualitative and quantitative reasons. If the trial Court had passed the impugned order in Cr.M.P.No.3181 of 2015 in a reasoned and speaking manner, then there will be an occasion for the revisional Court/higher forum to test the benefit of the order so passed. Unfortunately, in the present case, the impugned order dated 30.10.2015 in Cr.M.P.No.3181 of 2015 in M.C.No.11 of 2015 is bereft of reasoning and necessary qualitative and quantitative details. As such, the said impugned order dated 30.10.2015 without ascribing necessary reasons suffers from infirmity in the eye of Law and passing of a cryptic order dated 30.10.2015 in Cr.M.P.No.3181 of 2015 in M.C.No.11 of 2015 by the trial Court is clearly an illegal one in the eye of Law. Viewed in that perspective, this Court is left with no option, but to interfere with the said impugned order dated 30.10.2015 and accordingly, sets aside the impugned order dated 30.10.2015 in Cr.M.P.No.3181 of 2015 in M.C.No.11 of 2015 passed by the trial Court in furtherance of substantial cause of justice. Viewed in that perspective, this Court is left with no option, but to interfere with the said impugned order dated 30.10.2015 and accordingly, sets aside the impugned order dated 30.10.2015 in Cr.M.P.No.3181 of 2015 in M.C.No.11 of 2015 passed by the trial Court in furtherance of substantial cause of justice. The trial Court is directed to restore Cr.M.P.No.3181 of 2015 in M.C.No.11 of 2015 to file and further directed to pass a fresh, reasoned, speaking order on merits in a qualitative and quantitative terms and that too in a diligent and dispassionate manner, uninfluenced and untrammeled with any of the observations made by this Court in the Criminal Revision. It is abundantly made clear that the trial Court is to pass fresh orders in Cr.M.P.No. 3181 of 2015 in M.C.No.11 of 2015 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. At this stage, it is brought to the notice of this Court on behalf of the Respondent/Wife that the non-bailable warrant was issued against the Revision Petitioner/Husband by the trial Court and the same is pending. As such, this Court, directs the trial Court to take necessary effective and efficacious steps in regard to the execution of Non Bailable Warrant by the concerned police and to proceed further in accordance with law in the subject matter in issue. In the mean while, the Respondent/Wife is directed to file necessary petition/application for payment out to withdraw 50% from and out of the sum of Rs.4,500/- said to have been deposited on behalf of the Petitioner before the trial Court to the credit of M.C.No.11 of 2015. As regards the balance 50% amount, the trial Court is directed to deposit the same in any one of the nearby nationalised banks for a period of six months and to renew the same periodically, if the situation so warrants. The other 50% amount which was ordered to be deposited in a fixed deposit yielding high return in any one of the nationalised Bank may be taken into account at the time of passing fresh orders in Cr.M.P.No.3181 of 2015 in M.C.No.11 of 2015, less the 50% of the amount permitted to be withdrawn by the Respondent/Wife as per order passed by this Court. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.