← Library
Madras High CourtCRL RC/2642/2025dismissed

Logesh v. Priyadharshini

2025-12-03Honourable Mr.Justice Sunder Mohan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and C.M.P.No.23178 of 2025 Logesh ... Petitioner Vs.

Priyadharshini

...Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 read with 442 of BNSS to set aside the order dated 09.07.2025 passed in M.C.No.16 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court, Tiruppur in accordance with law. For Petitioners :

Mr.J.Franklin

JUDGMENT

The Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Tiruppur in M.C.No.16 of 2024. 1 / 4

2. The respondent claimed that the petitioner was earning more than Rs.2 lakhs through rents derived from the property owned by him and earning a sum of Rs.60,000/- per month as salary; that she is unemployed and unable to maintain herself and therefore entitled to maintenance.

3. The petitioner filed a counter stating that the respondent is a teacher; that she is earning sufficiently; that the petitioner resigned his job and is unemployed and therefore he cannot be directed to pay maintenance to the respondent.

4. The learned Judge after considering the materials on record found that the petitioner herein had not established that the respondent was working as a teacher. The learned Judge also held that the petitioner had not established that the petitioner was unemployed. The learned Judge therefore directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month as maintenance.

5. The amount awarded as maintenance is a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month. The learned Judge after considering the evidence held that the 2 / 4

petitioner has means to pay the maintenance to the respondent. The reasons assigned by the learned Judge for holding so is based on the available evidence adduced. There is absolutely no infirmity in the said findings.

6. Considering all the above facts, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not made any ground to interfere in the impugned order.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. sma 03.12.2025 3 / 4

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

sma To The Family Court Judge, Tiruppur.

03.12.2025 4 / 4