logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 5620 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : CRL R.C. No. 1575 of 2026 & CRL. M.P. No. 13869 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
Parties : P. Suresh Versus G.A. Rasulamma
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: M/s. Ramesh Venkatachalapathy, Advocate. For the Respondent: -----.
Date of Judgment : 03-08-2026
Head Note :-
BNSS - Section 438 r/w Section 442 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: The Revision is filed under Section 438 read with 442 of BNSS, to call for the records relating to the Fair and Decretal Order dated 04.04.2026 made in M.P.No.1009 of 2025 in M.C.No. 1009 of 2025 in M.C.No.296 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional Family Court, Chennai, set aside the same and consequently dismiss the petition for interim maintenance and litigation expenses and thus render justice.)

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed to call for the records relating to the Fair and Decretal Order dated 04.04.2026 made in M.P.No.1009 of 2025 in M.C.No. 1009 of 2025 in M.C.No.296 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional Family Court, Chennai and consequently dismiss the petition for interim maintenance and litigation expenses.

2. The facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner and the Respondent got married on 24.11.2023. Due to misunderstanding between the couple, the respondent left the matrimonial dispute. Thus, the respondent had filed maintenance case in M.P.No.1009 of 2025 in MC.No.296 of 2024, seeking maintenance before the Trial Court. The learned Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 04.04.2026, a sum of Rs.6,000/- p.m. was ordered to be paid to the respondent as interim maintenance. Challenging the said order, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner.

3. This Court heard Mr.Ramesh Venkatachalapathy, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner. Since no adverse order is passed against the respondent, 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 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 Respondent, the Trial Court had passed the impugned order, granting maintenance to the tune of Rs.6,000/- p.m. to the respondent 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 respondent is admitted. Before the Family Court, the petitioner/husband has specifically stated that the respondent/wife has left the matrimonial home without any valid reasons by taking away all the gold jewellery and other utensils, dress materials and since the respondent has not returned to the matrimonial home. In response, the respondent wife has stated that the petitioner is working in Cell Phone repair shop at Thikkavaram Village and earning a sum of Rs.13,000/- per month.

7. Furthermore, after the separation, the petitioner has not paid a single penny to the respondent for her food, clothes and shelter. It is difficult for her to maintain herself, since she is unemployed. Noting that the wife is not an earning member and that the petitioner/husband has sufficient means to support her, the Court ruled in favour of the respondent. The Family Court has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to the wife as interim maintenance, his omission is not sustainable, and as a dutiful husband, he remains obligated to maintain her.

8. The amount fixed towards maintenance by the Court Below is Rs.6,000/- for the respondent, 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 illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned orders, granting such quantum of maintenance, warranting interference by this Court.

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.

13. The petitioner is directed to deposit the entire arrears of maintenance, less amount if any, already deposited, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the petitioner is directed to pay the monthly maintenance regularly which was ordered by the Family Court dated 04.04.2026 to the respondent on or before every 5th day of English Calender month without any default.
 
  CDJLawJournal