R. Boominathan v. K.Ramadevi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18.11.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR and C.M.P.No. 28411 of 2025 R.Boominathan .. Petitioner vs K.Ramadevi .. Respondent Prayer : Petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and decree in I.A.No. 1 of 2023 of O.P.No. 1091 of 2020 dated 08.07.2025 on the file of IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner :

Mr.D.Chandrasekar For Respondents :

Ms.Geeta Ramaseshan

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month towards interim maintenance. 1/4

2.

The petitioner herein filed a petition seeking divorce against the respondent. Pending main OP, the respondent herein filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance. The trial Court passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of filing of petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner / husband is unemployed and he has no source of income and, therefore, sum of Rs.7,000/- fixed by the Family Court is on the higher side.

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that taking into consideration the prevailing inflation rate, amount of Rs.7,000/- fixed by the Family Court is a reasonable one and no interference is required.

5.

A perusal of the impugned order would indicate the petitioner herein filed his bank statement before the Family Court. It is noted by the court below in the impugned order that petitioner received a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month during May, August and September, 2019. Further, he received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in 2/4

the month of March, 2021 and Rs.50,000/- in October, 2021. He also received a sum of Rs.1,00,000 in November, 2021. All these receipts have not been explained by the petitioner properly. Therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is unemployed and has no source of income cannot be accepted in light of the statement of accounts produced before the court below.

6.

Taking into consideration the prevailing inflation rate, the Court below fixed a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month as interim maintenance and directed the petitioner to pay the same from the date of filing of petition.

7.

I do not find any error or perversity in the impugned order and, therefore, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 18.11.2025 Index:Yes/No ssm To The IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.

3/4

S. SOUNTHAR,J., ssm 18.11.2025 4/4