1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN Crl.R.C (MD).No.338 of 2011 M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 P.Gnanantham ... Petitioner vs. 1. G.Subha 2. G.Santhirabose ... Respondents (Respondents 1 and 2 minors rep. by their mother and guardian S.Kaathammal) Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C to call for the records relating to the order, dated 15.02.2011 passed in M.C.No.11 of 2009 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai and set aside the same. For petitioner : Mr.A.Balakrishnan For respondents : Mr.A.John Vincent ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This revision has been preferred, challenging the order, dated 15.02.2011 passed in M.C.No.11 of 2009 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein is the father of the minor respondents 1 and 2 and the respondents herein had filed a petition in M.C.No.11 of 2009 before the Court below under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance. After the trial, the Court below held that the respondents herein, being the minor children are entitled to claim maintenance from the revision petitioner and accordingly, directed the petitioner herein to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- each to the respondents herein. Challenging the aforesaid order, the criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an agriculturist and he has no means to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to each of the respondents herein and that the petitioner has a legally wedded wife and there are other children born through her. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the mother of the respondents is a Teacher and earning salary, but the aforesaid factum would not be a defence against the claim of the respondents herein. Being the father of the respondents herein, the petitioner is bound to maintain his children and further, the mother of the respondents has not claimed any maintenance from the petitinoer and therefore, the question raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is only out of purview of the revision petition. 6. The Court below has found that the petitioner is having sufficient agricultural lands and that has been stated by the respondents herein before the Court below. In support of the same, the patta relating to the lands has been marked as Ex.P.8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also disputed the paternity of the respondents, however, it is not open to the petitioner at this stage. 7. It is seen that the respondents herein as petitioners before the Court below have filed copy of the Birth certificate relating to both the respondents as well as the other supporting documents to establish that they are minor children of the petitioner herein. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court has to consider only the quantum of maintenance. 8. After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the materials available on record, it was directed that the petitioner has to pay 50% of the arrears of maintenance, as decided by the Court below within the time limit, accordingly, interim stay was also granted by this Court and out of which, at the request, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as first instalment within the time schedule and another Rs.25,000/- subsequently, however, the conditional order of this Court was not complied with by the petitioner herein. 9. As per the impugned order, the Court below has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to each of the respondents herein. As per the revision petition, it is seen that the first respondent is aged about 17 years and the second petitioner is aged about 16 years. 10. Considering the supporting documents and the evidence available on record, age and personal status of the respondents, this Court is of the view that the maintenance awarded in favour of the respondents is no way exorbitant. Hence, I could find no error or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Court below, so as to warrant any interference in this revision. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that on account of the pendency of the revision, the respondents could not get maintenance from the petitioner through the Court below. There is no justification on the part of the petitioner for not paying maintenance, as ordered by the Court below and failed to comply with the conditional order passed by this Court. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view to confirm the order passed by the Court below and dismiss https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 the revision. Accordingly, confirming the order passed by the Court below, this criminal revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To The Chief Judicial Magistrate Madurai. +One CC to Mr.A.John Vincent, Advocate, SR.No.38837 tsvn rl/3 c- 29.11.2011 Crl.R.C.(MD).No.338 of 2011 10-11-2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/