1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD)No.65 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 Chinnadurai ... Petitioner Vs. Sundaravalli ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. against the dismissal of Cr.M.P.No.10970 of 2010 by the order dated 03.12.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram. For Petitioner : Mr.P.T.Ramesh Raja For Respondent : Mr. Meenakshi Sundaram O R D E R By consent, the main revision itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.3 of 2008 filed by the respondent herein under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram. 3. In the maintenance case, it is averred by the respondent that the marriage between her and the revision petitioner herein was solemnised on 27.06.2004 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. Some time thereafter, the revision petitioner herein started harassing and ill-treating her on the pretext of demanding dowry. Therefore, she was left with no other option except to leave the company of the revision petitioner and in order to maintain her, the respondent herein filed the above said petition claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month from the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner herein, who is arrayed as respondent in the said M.C.No.3 of 2008, filed a counter stating that the petitioner has not stated anything about her illness and also not chosen to live with him and deliberately left the matrimonial home and therefore, he is not liable to pay maintenance and when the maintenance case was taken up for enquiry, neither the revision petitioner herein nor his counsel appeared and therefore, ex-parte order of maintenance came to be passed on 28.07.2010, awarding a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of petition. 4. The revision petitioner herein filed Crl.M.P.No.10970 of 2010 for condoning the delay of 363 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte order passed in the said maintenance case stating that there was a compromise talks and consequently, he was under the impression that the respondent herein will join her company. The said petition was strongly opposed by the respondent by filing a counter stating that the intention of the revision petitioner is only to drag on the proceedings and that she https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 is now at the stage of penury and she is unable to maintain herself and the lower Court on taking into consideration the averments made in the petition and the counter found that the reasons assigned by the revision petitioner for condonation of delay are not proper, sufficient and therefore, dismissed the said petition vide order dated 03.12.2010. Challenging the vires of the same, the present revision is filed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner on instructions would submit that the revision petitioner is ready and willing to join with the company of the respondent and it is only the respondent, not willing to join him. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions that without prejudice to his rights and contentions, the revision petitioner is ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs.35,000/- to the credit of M.C.No.3 of 2008 and also to pay cost for allowing this revision. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the only intention of the revision petitioner is to drag on the proceedings and the respondent is finding it very difficult to maintain herself. 7. This Court carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 8. Since the revision petitioner herein undertakes that he is ready and willing to join with the company of the respondent herein and also treat her with care, love and affection, this Court is of the view that one more opportunity is to be given to the revision petitioner to contest the case and also to find out the possibility of amicable settlement between them. 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 03.12.2010 made in Crl.M.P.No.10970 of 2010 is set aside subject to the following conditions: (a) The revision petitioner herein shall deposit a sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) to the credit of M.C.No.3 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram on or before 25.07.2011. (b) The revision petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) by way of cost to the learned counsel for the respondent herein on or before 25.07.2011. 10. On such deposit, the respondent herein is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) and the same will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondent herein. 11. If the petitioner fails to comply with any one of the above said conditions viz., (a) and (b) within the stipulated time, the revision would stand automatically dismissed without further reference to this Court, thereby confirming the impugned order passed by the lower Court. 12. In the event of the conditional order being complied with, M.C.No.3 of 2008 would stand restored to the file of the Court of Judicial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Magistrate, Ambasamudram and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and not later than 14.09.2011. The revision petitioner as well as the respondent herein are directed to extend their maximum co-operation to the trial Court for the expeditious disposal of the said M.C.No.3 of 2008. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To The Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram. +1cc to Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundram, Advocate, SR.NO.20316 akv GH : 12.07.2011 : 3p/3c Crl.R.C.(MD)No.65 of 2011 27.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/