Rajkumar v. Minor Dhanya

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13-10-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI AND CRL MP NO. 18218 OF 2025

1. Rajkumar K A Ramachandran, Door No.617/4 B2, Site No.6, Surabhi Mount View, IOB Colony, Maruthamalai, Vadavalli, Coimbatore - 46 Petitioner(s) Vs

1. Minor Dhanya Rep by his guardian Mother 3rd Respondent Saranya, Do.Durairaj, W/o.Rakumar.

2.Minor Varsha Rep by his guardian Mother, 3st Respondent, Saranya, D/o.Durairaj 3.Saranya D/o.Durairaj, W/o.Rakumar, All are residing at, D/o.19, Bannari Amman Nagar, Near Daksha Yavi Apartment Lakshmi Nagar, Thondamuthur Road, Vadavalli, Coimbatore - 46 Respondent(s) PRAYER To set aside the order and Final Order Dated 25.05.2025 made in M.C. No.72 of 2024 on the file of the Learned Additional Family Judge, Coimbatore by

allowing this Criminal Revision Petition.

e.

For Petitioner(s):

K.Sudhakar K.Muruganandham A.Kalaiselvi For Respondent:

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order and Final Order Dated 25.05.2025 made in M.C. No.72 of 2024 on the file of the Learned Additional Family Judge, Coimbatore.

2. The brief facts of the case:

The respondents herein filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C on the file of the Additional Family Judge, Coimbatore,seeking to direct the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the first and second respondents herein and to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the 3rd respondent herein as monthly maintenance. The petitioner herein contested the case by filing counter. On hearing both sides, the Trial Court directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the 3rd respondent herein and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the first and second respondent herein as monthly maintenance.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court has

failed to consider that the fact that 3rd respondent is graduate and she is able to maintain herself economically. Further, the petitioner is paying lot of amounts towards EMI and also maintaining his parents, however, without considering the above the Trial court ordered extremely high maintenance, which is unreasonable. Hence, he prays to allow this Criminal Revision Case.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Upon a perusal of the records, it is evident that the petitioner/husband is employed at Indian Bank, earning Rs. 1,38,784/- per month, while the third respondent/wife is unemployed. Furthermore, the first and second respondents (the daughters) are currently pursuing their education and are being maintained by the third respondent. This Court is of the view that the Trial Court rightly fixed the maintenance amount, which needs no interference. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as no merits. Pending petition, if any, is/are closed.

13-10-2025 pbl Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

pbl To The Additional Family Judge, Coimbatore

CRL RC No. 1857 of AND CRL MP NO.

18218 OF 2025 13-10-2025