This revision arises against the judgment of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, passed in C.A.No.8 of 2012 on 01.10.2013 confirming the order of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Tiruvallur, passed in M.P.No.8 of 2011 on 10.02.2012.
2. Respondent moved M.P.No.8 of 2011 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Tiruvallur, u/s.18, 19 and 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, against petitioners. Court below, under orders dated 10.02.2012, granted protection order, monetary relief of Rs.10,000/- p.m. and residential order. There against, petitioners moved C.A.No.8 of 2012 on the file of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, which came to be dismissed under judgment dated 01.10.2013. Aggrieved, the present revision has been filed.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent.
4. Apart from petitioners' contention that the respondent is a frequent source of disturbance, that her action resulted in unnecessary steep rise in electricity bills and the respondent residing at the same premises, which according to first petitioner belongs to his step-mother, causes untold sufferings, learned counsel also informs that owing to a false complaint preferred by respondent, first petitioner has suffered custody for a period of nine days. Learned counsel produces the judgment in C.C.No.249 of 2011 dated 10.05.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, whereunder the petitioner and his step-mother have been acquitted of charges u/s.4 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and 506(ii) IPC. The matter was referred to Mediation and though both counsel were present before the Mediation Centre on 28.02.2017, both parties were not. Learned counsel submits that by inadvertence, petitioners were informed of the date of proceeding before the Mediation Centre as today (01.03.2017). Petitioners are present before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the absence of the respondent before the Mediation Centre was owing to the daughter of the couple suffering from swine flu.
6. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that even on the earlier hearing, submission of the daughter of the respondent suffering from swine flu was made and such submission is false. Learned counsel submits that the child is at School even today.
7. When learned counsel for respondent contended otherwise, this Court informed that it would immediately appoint an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain if the child was at School today. The response of learned counsel for respondent is a turn around to the effect that the child is at School owing to the final examinations. Bemoaning the conduct and considering the circumstances, this Court is of the view that it would not be appropriate to permit respondent to continue to reside at the house where the petitioner party reside. It would be appropriate to direct first petitioner to make a provision for payment of rent towards respondent obtaining rental accommodation. This Court is also of the view that the direction of maintenance in a sum of Rs.10,000/- is on the higher side taking into consideration the contention that the first petitioner, who is a homeopathic Doctor, is now pursuing Doctorate studies.
8. Accordingly, this Court directs as follows:
(i)First petitioner is directed to pay maintenance in sums of Rs.3,500/- each to respondent and the child on or before 5th of every succeeding month.
(ii)First petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- p.m. towards provision of rent for the respondent. Such sum shall be payable from 01.04.2017 and payment shall be effected on or before 5th of every succeeding month.
(iii)Apart from the sums of Rs.5,000/- p.m. paid by first petitioner to the respondent during the pendency of proceedings before this Court, first petitioner is directed to pay a consolidated sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the arrears of maintenance within a period of six weeks from today.
(iv)Respondent is directed to vacate the petitioners premises on or before 31.03.2017.
(v)Since maintenance is directed to be paid by first petitioner to the respondent and the child in the present order, it will be open to him to seek adjustment/alteration of maintenance in proceedings initiated by respondent u/s.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of with the above direction. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.03.2017 Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no gm To
1.The I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur.
2.The Judicial Magistrate II, Tiruvallur.
C.T.SELVAM, J gm Crl.R.C.No.713 of 2014 01.03.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in