(Prayer: The Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 438 read with 442 of BNSS 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the fair and decreetal orders passed in M.P.No.27 of 2026 in M.C.No.304 of 2023 order dated 17.04.2024 on the file of the Learned VI Additional Family Court, Chennai, set aside the same and permit the Revision Petition to contest the maintenance proceedings on merits.)

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed to quash the orders passed in M.P.No.27 of 2026 in M.C.No.304 of 2023 order dated 17.04.2024 on the file of the Learned VI Additional Family Court, Chennai and permit the Revision Petition to contest the maintenance proceedings on merits.

2. The facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner and the 1st Respondent got married on 15.04.2013 and the respondents 2 & 3 are the children, born to them. Due to misunderstanding between the couple, they are living separately. At this juncture, the 1st Respondent had filed MC.No.392 of 2023, seeking maintenance before the Trial Court and the same is pending. The learned trial Judge, vide order dated 17.04.2024, passed an ex parte order and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- each per month to the first and second respondent and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to the third respondent as maintenance. It was further ordered to pay the arrears of maintenance to the respondents from the date of petition till the date of the order passed by the Family Court. To set aside the said order of maintenance, the petitioner has filed MP.Nos.27 and 28 of 2026 before the Family Court with 564 days delay and the same is dismissed. Challenging the said order, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner.

3. This Court heard Mrs.C.Shankary, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner. Since no adverse order is passed against the respondents, notice to them is dispensed with.

4. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the court below failed to appreciate the fact that the Family Court has failed to consider that the petitioner had been regularly appearing before the Family Court and contesting the maintenance proceedings from the beginning. At the time of passing the order, the petitioner was hospitalised. The learned counsel further submitted that the 1st Respondent voluntarily refused to live with him, without any reasonable cause and that without considering the liabilities and the financial status of the Revision Petitioner and also the source of income available to the 1st Respondent, the Trial Court had passed the impugned order, granting maintenance to the tune of Rs.35,000/- p.m. totally to the Respondents and that without proper application of mind, the impugned order had been passed in a mechanical manner and hence, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed, as prayed for.

5. This Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the entire materials placed on record.

6. The fact that the Revision Petitioner is the husband of the 1st Respondent and they got two children, is admitted and not in dispute. The respondents filed a maintenance case and the learned Family Court has passed ex parte order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month to the respondents. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed a petition before the said Family Court with a delay of 564 days. Before the Family Court, the petitioner/husband has specifically stated that the petitioner was hospitalized at the time of passing the order of maintenance and his father was also seriously ill and admitted in hospital, and his mother is aged and unable to take care of his father. However, the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence to prove the above said facts.

7. Before the Family Court, the first respondent wife has stated that the petitioner is working as IT head in Parvathy Orthopedic Hospital and earns well and also having sufficient means. The third respondent/male child is the special child suffering from spinal muscular atrophy having disability of 90%. On perusal of Ex.P8/disability certificate of the third respondent establishes the same. Furthermore, after their separation, the petitioner has not paid a single penny for food, clothes and shelter of the respondents. Noting that the wife is not an earning member and that the petitioner/husband has sufficient means to support them, the Court ruled in favour of the respondents. The Family Court has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month each to the wife and the daughter and Rs.15,000/- per month to the third respondent/son, who is a special child, as maintenance, his omission is not sustainable, and as a dutiful husband and father, he remains obligated to maintain them.

8. The amount fixed towards maintenance by the Court Below is Rs.35,000/- per month for all the respondents, which, in the present days of rising prices and high cost of living, cannot be considered as excessive or disproportionate or unreasonable. The said monetary relief granted to the Respondents, by the courts below is adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living, to which the aggrieved person is accustomed.

9. The provision of Section 144 of BNSS is enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife/child and provide some succour to them, who are entitled to get the maintenance, which cannot be denied.

10. Further, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has not been able to point out any reason in respect of such huge delay and this Court does not find any illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order and the same is perfect and reasoned.

11. In such circumstances, to meet the ends of justice, the impugned orders does not require any interference by this Court, as this Court does not find any illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned orders and this Criminal Revision Case lacks merit and hence, it is liable to be dismissed.

12. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed, as devoid of merits. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.