M.Rajesh v. R.Suganya

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED M.Rajesh, S/o.K.Muniandi 309, 5th Street, Sastri Nagar, Vyasarpadi Chennai 6000039 ..Petitioner(s) Vs R.Suganya, W/o.M.Rajesh, D/o.R.N.Subramani 35, C Block, Raagam Apartments Melpatti Ponnappan Street, Vyasarpadi Chennai 600039 ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order, dated 07.01.2026, passed in MP.No.681 of 2024 in MC.No.92 of 2024, by the I Additional Family Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner(s):

Ms.U.Anunitha For Respondent(s):

Mr.C.V.Yugendran for Mr.G.Mohana Krishnan

ORDER

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order, dated 07.01.2026, passed in MP.No.681 of 2024 in MC.No.92 of 2024, by the I Additional Family Court, Chennai.

2. The facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner and the Respondent got married on 07.02.2011 and out of their wed lock, two femal children were born. Due to matrimonial dispute, the Revision Petitioner had filed

HMOP.No.76 of 2022, against the Respondent, seeking divorce. The Respondent had filed MC.No.92 of 2024, seeking maintenance. In MP.No.681 of 2024 in MC.No.92 of 2024, filed under Section 125 of Cr.PC, by the Respondent, seeking interim maintenace, by the impunged order, a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m. was ordered to be paid to the Respondent and her two female children, namely, Sashvitha and Adhira, as an interim maintenance. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner, seeking the relief, as stated above.

3. This Court heard Ms.U.Anunitha, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.C.V.Yugendran for Mr.G.Mohana Krishnan, the learned counsel for the Respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that without assessing the financial capacity of the Revision Petition and the means and ability of the Respondent to maintain herself and her two children and also without affording sufficient opportunity of being heard, the Trial Court had passed the impugned order, granting interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000/- p.m. to the Respondent and her two children and that without proper application of mind and without providing reasonable opportunity to file necessary materials, the impugned order had been passed in a mechanical manner hence, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed, as prayed for.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the

Trial Court had passed the impugned order, after duly considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the statements of both the Petitioner and the Respondent. It is contended that, in such circumstances, and in order to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court. The amount of Rs.15,000/- as interim maintenance for the Respondent and her two children is not too much. There is no illegality, impropriety, or perversity in the impugned order, nor does it reflect any abuse of the process of the Court.

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

7. The facts that the Revision Petitioner is the husband of the Respondent and they got two female childen have not been denied. The amount fixed towards interim maintenance by the Court Below is Rs.15,000/- for the Respondent and the two Children, 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 125 of Cr.PC 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.

08-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SRCM

SHAMIM AHMED, J.

SRCM 08-06-2026