IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:29.6.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.R.C.No.112 of 2006 Ravichandran ... Petitioner vs. Vanmathi ...Respondent Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to call for the order dated 16.11.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Cuddalore at Chidambaram, in C.R.P.No.76 of 2004 and set aside the same. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Pugazhenthi For Respondent : Mr.R.Srinivas O R D E R
Challenging and impugning the order dated 16.11.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Cuddalore at Chidambaram, in C.R.P.No.76 of 2004, this criminal revision case is focussed.
2. A ‘resume’ of facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case would run thus:
The respondent herein filed the M.C.No.6 of 2000 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Portanava, which Court awarded maintenance in a sum of Rs.500/- per month payable by the revision petitioner herein in favour of the respondent from the date of the order, so to say 24.11.2004, and not from the date of filing of the M.C.No.6 of 2000.
3. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the order of the Magistrate in directing the revision petitioner herein to pay maintenance only from the date of the order and not from the date of the M.C., the revision C.R.P.No.76 of 2004 was filed before the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Cuddalore, which Court modified the order of the learned Magistrate and directed that the maintenance should be payable from the date of the M.C.
4. Challenging and impugning the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Cuddalore, in C.R.P.No.76 of 2004, this revision is focussed on various grounds.
5. However, at the hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would make a supine submission to the effect that the petitioner would be satisfied if the consequences of the orders are made explicit and direction given to that effect.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent would have no contra arguments to put forth in this regard.
7. At this juncture I would like to point out that a bare perusal of the order of the Magistrate would reveal as under:-
VERNACULAR ( TAMIL ) PORTION DELETED
8. The above observation by the Magistrate itself would solve the problem. However, by way of clarifying and warding off un-necessary doubts in this regard, I would like to highlight here that the order of the Fast Track Court in C.R.P.No.76 of 2004 that the revision petitioner herein shall pay a sum of Rs.500/- per month from the date of M.C. shall hold good. However, while calculating arrears of maintenance in M.C.No.6 of 2000, if already payments were made in compliance with the order of interim maintenance in the relevant H.M.O.P. between the parties concerned, then the same shall be taken into account and adjusted accordingly and for the remaining period, the respondent is at liberty to claim as per the order of M.C.
The criminal revision case is ordered accordingly.
Msk
To
1.The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1,
Cuddalore at Chidambaram.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court