Remeggious Krishnan v. Anne Anshumathi Raj

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR CRP No. 234 of 2025 and CMP.No.1551 of 2025 Remeggious Krishnan ..Petitioner(s) Vs Anne Anshumathi Raj ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 29.06.2022 passed in IA No.1 of 2019 in OP No.1308 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai. For Petitioner(s):

M/s.S.P.Arthi For Respondent(s):

Mr.Saurabh Mishra

ORDER

The civil revision petition is filed by petitioner/husband challenging the order passed by the family court directing him to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per month each to three minor daughters and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses.

2. It is not in dispute that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 30.08.2009 and out of wedlock, three female

children were born. The relationship between the petitioner and the respondent got strained. Therefore, the respondent and her children have been living separately from 07.02.2019. The respondent filed original petition under Section 10(1)(x), 37 and 43 of the Divorce Act, 1869, seeking divorce from the petitioner. She also sought for permanent custody of the three minor children and permanent alimony of Rs.2 crores. Pending disposal of the OP, she filed IA.No.1 of 2019 seeking interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per month to her and Rs.35,000/- per month to each of her three minor children apart from litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/-. The said application filed by her was partly allowed by directing the petitioner/ husband to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month each to the three minor daughters and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come before this court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent/wife suppressed her income in the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking maintenance. It was further stated by the learned counsel that in the affidavit, the respondent claimed that she had no income but during enquiry, she filed affidavit of assets and liabilities admitting her employment and income. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent filed a false affidavit before the family court. It is further stated that the respondent suppressed various remittances in the bank account in favour of "Q Glamour Fabrics", a business undertaking run by her. It is also stated that

various payment made to the "Vostro pool" account of the respondent had also been suppressed. The learned counsel, by taking this court to the entry in the bank account of the respondent, submitted that the income of the respondent and her business has not been taken into consideration by the family court. It was also submitted that the quantum of Rs. 35,000/- per month fixed by the family court as maintenance to each of the three minor daughters is without any basis and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per the salary slip of the respondent, her monthly income is only Rs.38,875/- and whereas the admitted monthly income of the petitioner is Rs.3,43,309/-. In view of the same, a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month awarded by the family court as interim maintenance to each of the child is very reasonable and the said order has no interference.

5. A perusal of the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by the respondent/ wife would indicate that she has been working as a HR Advisor in a company called UshtaTe Consultancy Services and earning a monthly income of Rs.38,875/-. It is true that the respondent, in her affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking interim maintenance, had averred that she had no income but in the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed before the family court, she admitted that she is employed and receiving a salary of Rs.38,875/-. Taking into consideration the said fact, the family court held that she is having sufficient income to maintain herself and therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, by pointing out certain entries in the bank statement of respondent, submitted that the business income of the respondent by way of money transfer to "Q Glamour Fabrics" and "Vostro pool" accounts have not been considered by the family court. It is relevant to point out that taking into account the earning status of the respondent, the family court held that she is not entitled to maintenance. Therefore, even assuming certain money transfer into the business undertaking of respondent and her "Vostro pool" account have not been mentioned in the impugned order, the same will not affect the final conclusion reached by the family court that the respondent is not entitled to maintenance.

6. A perusal of the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by the petitioner herein would indicate that he is an IT professional holding B.E. Electricals and Electronics degree with Post Graduate Diploma. His monthly income is stated to be Rs.3,43,309/- as per his affidavit. Though he claimed monthly expenditure at the rate of Rs. 4,36,078/-, the family court noted that he has not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate the same. The petitioner is also having two houses in Malaysia and one in Chennai. Taking into consideration the income and the financial status of the petitioner, the Family Court directed him to pay maintenance to three children at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per month each. The total maintenance amount payable by the petitioner is less than one-third of his monthly salary. The petitioner is bound to maintain his three children, who are now living with the respondent. It is not in dispute that the children are

studying and educational expenses have to be taken into consideration. The quality of education to be given to the minor children shall be on par with the financial status of the petitioner and they should be paid maintenance adequately to maintain the lifestyle proportionate to the income of the petitioner.

7. Having regard to the monthly income of the petitioner, this Court feels that the quantum of interim maintenance fixed by the Family Court cannot be said to be excessive and the same appears to be reasonable one. Therefore, I do not find anything to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Family Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No cost. 24-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nr To The Principal Family Court, Chennai.

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

nr CRP No. 234 of 2025 and CMP.No.1551 of 2025 24-02-2026