(Prayer: This revision case is filed under Section 438 & 442 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records of the Order dated 02.06.2026 passed by the Learned V Additional Family Court at Chennai in MP.No.2270 of 2025 In MC.No.351 of 2025 and set aside the same and pass such other or appropriate orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case and thus render justice.)

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed to quash the Order dated 02.06.2026 passed by the Learned V Additional Family Court at Chennai in MP.No.2270 of 2025 in MC.No.351 of 2025.

2. The facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner and the 1st Respondent got married on 20.01.2021. Due to misunderstanding between the couple, the respondent had filed MC.No.351 of 2025, seeking maintenance before the Trial Court. During pendency of the MC., the respondent filed the miscellaneous petition in MP.No.2270 of 2025. The learned Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 02.06.2026, a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m. was ordered to be paid to the Respondent as interim maintenance. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner, seeking the relief, as stated above.

3. This Court heard Mr.Leelesh Sundaram appearing for M/s.Nathan and Associates, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner. Since no adverse order is passed against the respondent, notice to her is dispensed with.

4. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the court below failed to appreciate the fact 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.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.

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 and the same has not been denied. Before the Family Court, the respondent has specifically stated that she is employed as a consultant Naturopathy Doctor and is earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. To that effect, she has filed documentary evidence before the Family Court. However, the respondent is working in a Bank and he has suppressed his income and has not produced any documents like salary account details, bank statement and pay slips. Therefore, the Family Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner/husband may earn more than Rs.1.20 lakhs per month.

7. Furthermore, after the separation, the petitioner has not paid a single penny to the respondent for her basic needs. Noting that the wife is earning very meager amount. 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.15,000/- per month to the wife as interim maintenance.

8. The amount fixed towards maintenance by the Court Below is Rs.15,000/- for the respondent as interim maintenance, 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.

9. The provisions of Section 144 of BNSS are 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 merits 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 pay the entire arrears of maintenance to the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the Family Court is directed to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner is further directed to pay the maintenance regularly as directed by the Family Court, without fail.