logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 6165 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : CRL. RC. No. 1594 of 2026 & CRL. MP. No. 14070 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
Parties : Sathishkumar Versus Minor Dhanasri, Rep.by her guardian, Murugan / Grand Father
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: C. Munusamy, Advocate. For the Respondent: -----.
Date of Judgment : 04-08-2026
Head Note :-
Criminal Procedure Code - Section 125(1) -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: To call for the records relating to the order dated 24.02.2026 made in M.C.No.1 of 2023 on the file of the Family Court, Villupuram.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

2. The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order dated 24.02.2026 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Villupuram, in M.C.No.1 of 2023, whereby the petition filed by the minor respondent, represented by her maternal grandfather/guardian, under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, came to be allowed and the petitioner/father was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance to the minor child from the date of filing of the petition, i.e., 25.08.2022, until her marriage.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the mother of the minor respondent, namely Dharani, was solemnized on 30.03.2018 and out of the wedlock, the minor child was born on 11.10.2019. It is submitted that the matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and Dharani was not cordial and that she had left the matrimonial home. It is further submitted that the petitioner had instituted HMOP No.91 of 2022 seeking dissolution of marriage and the same was allowed on 23.11.2022. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is a differently abled person, having suffered substantial loss of vision in both eyes and impairment in the functioning of his right index finger. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has no sufficient independent income and is dependent upon his aged father, who is running a small puncture shop for his livelihood.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the financial condition and disability of the petitioner and mechanically fixed the monthly maintenance at Rs.5,000/-. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not in a position to pay the amount fixed by the learned Trial Court and that the said amount is excessive having regard to his income and circumstances.

5. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not wilfully neglected or refused to maintain the minor child and that he is willing to discharge his obligation according to his financial capacity. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner, being the biological father of the minor child, has already taken steps for seeking her custody and that the question of custody is also pending consideration in appropriate proceedings.

6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record, including the impugned order.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner is the biological father of the minor respondent. It is also not in dispute that the minor child is presently under the care and custody of her maternal grandfather. The learned Trial Court, after considering the evidence adduced by both sides, found that the minor child is entitled to maintenance from her father.

8. The principal grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the quantum of maintenance. The learned Trial Court has recorded a finding that, though the petitioner claimed his monthly income to be Rs.14,000/-, the bank statement produced before the Court disclosed salary credits ranging between Rs.16,745/- and Rs.20,187/- per month, including a credit of Rs.20,187/- on 03.08.2025. In the absence of any salary slip or other satisfactory material establishing a lesser income, the learned Trial Court assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.20,000/-.

9. The disability pleaded by the petitioner has also been taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court. However, the mere fact that the petitioner is a differently abled person cannot, by itself, absolve him of his statutory obligation to maintain his minor child, particularly when the materials on record disclose that he is employed and earning an income.

10. At the same time, the Court has to consider the actual financial capacity of the father while determining the quantum of maintenance. In the present case, the learned Trial Court has fixed only a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards the food, clothing, medical and educational needs of the minor child. Having regard to the age of the child, her basic necessities and the income assessed by the learned Trial Court, the said amount cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable.

11. The matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the child's mother, including the dissolution of marriage in HMOP No.91 of 2022, cannot take away the independent right of the minor child to seek maintenance from her father. The obligation to maintain a minor child is distinct from the disputes between the spouses.

12. The contention of the petitioner that he is seeking custody of the minor child also does not affect the child's entitlement to maintenance during the period in which she is in the custody of the maternal grandfather. The question as to which parent or guardian should have custody of the child has to be decided in the appropriate proceedings, keeping in view the paramount welfare of the child.

13. On a careful consideration of the entire materials, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has considered the relevant factors, including the income of the petitioner, his circumstances and the requirements of the minor child, and has arrived at a reasonable conclusion. No perversity, illegality or material irregularity has been demonstrated warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

14. It is also relevant to note that the revisional jurisdiction is limited in nature and this Court would not ordinarily interfere with a well-reasoned order of the Court below merely because another view is possible. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any sufficient ground for such interference. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The order dated 24.02.2026 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Villupuram, in M.C.No.1 of 2023 is confirmed.

15. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal