M.Mahendran v. K.J.Vinothini

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED M.Mahendran S/o.Mohan, No.87/5, Zubedur Thottam, Choolaimedu, Chennai-600 094.

At present temporarily residing at No.31/535, Ramachandra Reddy nagar, Krishnam Palli Road, Punganur, Andhra Pradesh-517247.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. K.J.Vinothini W/o.Mahendran, Residing at No.12A/10, Alavandar Street, Manambed, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053.

2. M.V.Joshitha (Minor) D/o.Mahendran, Residing at No.12A/10, Alavandar Street, Manambed, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER:

To allow this Criminal Revision Petition by setting aside the order dated 04.04.2026 passed in Crl.MP.No.1687 of 2025 in M.C.No.522 of 2021 on the file of the Honble II Additional Family Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner(s):

M/S.A.Haseen Sulthana

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

2. This Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 04.04.2026 by which the application filed by the wife under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. was allowed and the court directed to pay Rs.8,50,000/- towards arrears of maintenance with litigation charges of Rs.25,000/- totalling to Rs.8,75,000/- to the respondent/wife and in case of failure, warrant of arrest and detention in civil prison as provided under law.

3. Today when the Court asked the learned counsel for the Petitioner that whether his client is able to pay atleast Rs.4,00,000/- to show his bonafide, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that his client the petitioner is not in a position to pay the same and submitted that the court may decide the case finally. Hence, this court is not inclined to entertain this Criminal Revision Case as the order passed by the trial court is justified and genuine and no sympathy of the court with the person who is not paying a single penny as maintenance to his wife.

4. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned trial court do not require any interference. The order of the trial court is justified and convincing and no interference is required in this regard and this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.

5. The facts that the Revision Petitioner is the husband of the 1st Respondent and they got a minor female child/2nd Respondent, have not been denied. The amount fixed towards maintenance by the Court Below is Rs.20,000/- for the 1st Respondent and the female child/2nd Respondent, 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 Respondents, 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.P.C are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife and child 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. Accordingly, in view of the observation and discussion made above, the present Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

6. The Trial court is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law for the recovery of the entire arrear amount and pay the same to the respondents. GV 10-06-2026

To

1. The II Additional Family Court, Chennai.

2. K.J.Vinothini W/o.Mahendran, Residing at No.12A/10, Alavandar Street, Manambed, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053.

3. M.V.Joshitha (Minor) D/o.Mahendran, Residing at No.12A/10, Alavandar Street, Manambed, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053.

SHAMIM AHMED, J.

GV 10-06-2026