S. Umaiyal, S. Karthiga and S. Lakshmi vs M. Sudalaimani

C.S. Karnan, J.—The petitioners have filed the Criminal Revision Petition against the order passed in Cr.M.P. No. 5624 of 2009 dated 07.12.2009 in M.C. No. 5 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The first petitioner is the wife of the respondent, 2nd and 3rd petitioners are daughters of the respondent, they have filed a maintenance case in M.C. No. 5 of 2003 against the respondent for claiming monthly maintenance for themselves. The petitioner had marked evidence to prove this case, likewise the respondent/husband also rendered evidence in Chief of R.W.1. The case posted for cross examination of R.W.1. At that time the respondent wants to produce some documents to establish his case namely, (1) LIC premium particulars (2) Letter sent to the respondent (3) Education expenses of the 2nd petitioner (4) Educational fees paid particulars (5) for higher studies education fees particulars of the 2nd petitioner (6) Education expenses particulars of the 3rd petitioner (7) Marriage photo of the 3rd petitioner.

This was opposed revision petitioners by way of counter statement, stating that the respondent/ husband never stated about the documents in this counter statement now this case posted for respondent evidence. At this stage the respondent husband has filed a petition and sought permission from the Court to mark some documents. This petition tantamounts to the case being prolonged. Further it was at an after thought that the respondent filed the petition.

After considering the contention of both parties the learned Magistrate allowed the respondent petition. Aggrieved by this order the revision petition was filed.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the documents are irrelevant in the maintenance case. At this stage if the respondent permits to mark the documents, the character of the maintenance case will be changed. The maintenance case is entirely different from the educational expenditure of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners. The LIC premium is also not relevant in this case. As such the Cr.M.P.5624 of 2009 is not maintainable.

The learned Counsel for the respondent argued that the said respondent is a dutiful husband to the 1st petitioner and dutiful father to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners. The respondent spent huge amounts towards their higher education. Document No. 7 marriage photo of the 3rd petitioner is a vital document. As per this document the 3rd petitioner is not entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent father, as such the above the Criminal Revision Petition is not maintainable, the learned Counsel argued accordingly.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for the respective parties and the findings of the learned Magistrate, this Court is of the view that the 7 document mentioned by the respondent/husband are relevant documents in the maintenance case to prove his bonafides. If the said documents are marked in the maintenance case the character of the case will not be changed, and on the other hand the petitioner will not be prejudiced. Hence, the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Cr.M.P. No. 5624 of 2009 dated 07.12.2009 is confirmed.

In the result the above Criminal Revision Petition No. 403 of 2010 is dismissed. Consequently the order passed in Cr.M.P. No. 5624 of 2009 dated 07.12.2009 is confirmed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. This Court hereby directs to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi to dispose the case in M.C. No. 5 of 2003 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There is no order as to costs.