logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 5794 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : CRL R.C. No. 1621 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
Parties : A. Ravichandran Versus R. Selvi
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: V. Vadivalagia Nambi, Advocate. For the Respondent: -----.
Date of Judgment : 06-08-2026
Head Note :-
BNSS, 2023 - Section 144 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: To set aside the order dated, 23.02.2026 passed in MC.No.184 of 2024 by the Additional Family Judge, Coimbatore and pass such further or other orders.)

1. Since the Criminal Revision Petition is being disposed of, at the admission stage itself and in view of the order to be passed in this petition, notice to the Respondent is dispensed with.

2. This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order, dated 23.02.2026, passed in MC.No.184 of 2024, by the Additional Family Judge, Coimbatore

3. The facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner and the Respondent got married on 07.02.2011. Due to matrimonial dispute, the Respondent has left the matrimonial home and filed MC.No.184 of 2024, under Section 144 of BNSS, 2023, seeking maintenance, before the Trial Court. By the impunged order, a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m. as maintenance, was ordered to be paid to the Respondent. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner, seeking the relief, as stated above.

4. This Court heard Mr.V.Vadivalagia Nambi, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the Revisioner Petitioner was suffering from multiple serious ailments, such as, heart disease and involuntary urination during sleep, for which he has been spending huge amounts and that without assessing the financial capacity of the Revision Petitioner and the means and ability of the Respondent to maintain herself, the Trial Court had passed the impugned order, granting maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000/- 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.

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

7. The fact that the Revision Petitioner is the husband of the Respondent has not been denied. The amount fixed towards maintenance by the Court Below is Rs.15,000/- 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 Respondent, by the courts below is adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living, to which the aggrieved person is accustomed. The provisions of Section 144 of BNSS are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife and provide some succour to them, who are entitled to get the maintenance, which cannot be denied. 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.

8. 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 merits and hence, it is liable to be dismissed.

9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed, as devoid of merits. There is no order as to costs.

10. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court concerned, for its information and complliance.
 
  CDJLawJournal