1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:02.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN Crl.R.C (MD).No.655 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 1. N.Balamurugan 2. Kalimuthammal 3. Muthulakshmi 4. Muruganandam 5. Subramaniam :Petitioners -Vs- Anitha :Respondent Criminal Revision Petition filed, seeking an order to set aside the order, dated 04.05.2011 passed in Crl.R.P.No.12 of 2010 on the file of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram, modifying the earlier order, dated 08.06.2010 passed in M.C.No.5 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ramanathapuram. For petitioners: Mr.C.Jeganathan For respondent : Mr.H.Velavadhas ORDER This Criminal Revision has been preferred challenging the order, dated 04.05.2011 made in Crl.R.P.No.12 of 2010 on the file of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram, modifying the earlier order, dated 08.06.2010 made in M.C.No.5 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram. 2.The first petitioner is the husband of the respondent herein and the petitioners 2 to 5 are the family members of the first petitioner. It is seen that Crl.R.P.No.12 of 2010 was filed by the respondent herein against the petitioners herein, seeking maintenance on the ground that she could not maintain herself. 3.As per the impugned order, it is seen that the respondent herein had claimed a monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- from the first petitioner herein. The Court below, on merits allowed the petition, directing the first petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent herein. 4.It is not in dispute that a case was registered against the petitioners 1 to 5 under Sections 18, 10, 20 and 22 of the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. As per Section 12 (5) of the said Act, the Court should dispose the matter within sixty days, however, it was not disposed of within the time limit. Considering the petition filed by the respondent, the Court below passed an order, directing the first petitioner / husband of the respondent herein to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/-, which is only an interim order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the first petitioner is in abroad, however he has sufficient properties in India and also source of Income to pay the maintenance. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that under a compelling circumstances, the marriage had been solemnized between the respondent and the first petitioner and on account of the same, the first petitioner has filed H.M.O.P.No.51 of 2008, seeking declaration of the marriage null and void. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the H.M.O.P filed by the first petitioner herein was dismissed by the Court below on 18.06.2011. In support of his contention, the learned counsel produced a certified copy of the order, whereby it is seen that the said H.M.O.P was dismissed for default on 16.06.2011. Subsequently, the petitioner herein filed a petition to restore the same, that was also dismissed by an order, dated 29.09.2011. Even if any H.M.O.P is pending that would not be a legal defence for not paying maintenance. 6.In the aforesaid circumstances, the first petitioner cannot dispute the marital status of the respondent herein. Being the wife of the first petitioner, who is unable to maintain herself is entitled to claim maintenance. Since the case against the petitioners under Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act is pending, the miscellaneous petition was filed by the respondent seeking maintenance, whereby maintenance was awarded by the Court below, directing the first petitioner herein to pay Rs.3,000/- p.m to the respondent. There is no legal defence available in favour of the first petitioner herein. 7.Considering the facts and circumstances, it being an interim order, I could find no error or infirmity in deciding the quantum of maintenance at Rs.3,000/- per month, ordered by the Court below in favour of the respondent. Hence, I hold that the revision petition is not legally sustainable, accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed. 8.In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Addl. District and Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ramanathapuram. Tsvn Crl.R.C (MD).No.655 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 RP/29.12.2011/2P/3C. 02-12-2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/