Kalaivani v. Krishnaraj

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.03.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Crl.R.C.No.305 of 2025

1. Kalaivani

2. Minor Madhunisha [ Second petitioner is represented by his mother and natural guardian the first petitioner ] ... Petitioners Vs Krishnaraj ... Respondent PRAYER:

Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 read with 442 of BNSS, to call for the records in M.C.No.177 of 2019 dated 22.08.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Principal Family Court, Coimbatore and to set aside the order and to enhance the maintenance to each of the petitioners at Rs.15,000/- each per month sought for in the petition.

For Petitioners : M/s.Lakshmipriya

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the case in M.C.No.177 of 2019 and to set aside the order dated 22.08.2024 passed in M.C.No.177 of 2019 by the learned Principal Judge, Principal Family Court, Coimbatore and to enhance the maintenance amount to Rs.15,000/- per month to each of the petitioners as sought for in the petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioners have filed the maintenance case in M.C.No.177 of 2019 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. The learned Judge, Family Court, after enquiry, vide order dated 22.08.2024, ordered/directed the second respondent herein to pay Rs.4,000/- as maintenance ie., Rs.2,000/- to each of the petitioners. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed this criminal revision petition.

4. Before the Family Court, as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, the respondent/husband filed the statement of Assets and Liabilities, wherein he has stated that his monthly income is Rs.6,500/-. The petitioners have not produced any other evidence regarding respondent's monthly income. However, the respondent/husband admitted that he has got agricultural lands about 2 1⁄2 acres. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent/husband derived income from the coconut trees in his land. Except the admission of the respondent/husband that he has got agricultural lands of 2 1⁄2 acres and having some coconut trees in the land, the petitioner has not established any income contra to the assets and liabilities statement produced by the respondent/husband.

5. Considering the abovesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and economical status of the respondent, this Court does not find any perversity in the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court.

6. In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

14.02.2025 mfa Index:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No To The Principal Judge, Principal Family Court, Coimbatore

P.VELMURUGAN, J mfa Crl.R.C.No.305 of 2025 04.03.2025