Rengan v. Ponnayi

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED CRL.R.C.(MD)No.197 of 2025 and CRL MP(MD)No.2000 of 2025 Rengan, S/o.Veerasangan, Selai Kattiyur, Keeraur Village, Kadavur Taluk, Karur District - 639 119.

... Petitioner vs.

Ponnayi, W/o.Rengan, Selai Kattiyur, Keeraur Village, Kadavur Taluk, Karur District - 639 119.

... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertains to the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Karur in M.C.No.72 of 2024, dated 11.11.2024 and to set aside the same.

1/7

For Petitioner :Mr.O.Nagajeevan For Mr.Ramesh Mahadev For Respondent :Mr.S.Deenadhayalan *****

O R D E R

Heard Mr.O.Nagajeevan, learned counsel for Mr.Ramesh Mahadev for the Petitioner and Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, learned counsel for the Respondent.

2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned judgement and order dated 11.11.2024 passed by Family Court, Karur in M.C.No.72 of 2024 by which the Respondent was awarded Rs.5,000/-per month, as maintenance allowance.

3. Mr.O.Nagajeevan, learned counsel for Mr.Ramesh Mahadev learned counsel, appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner and the Respondent are husband and wife. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 20.01.1994. Due to difference of opinion, they are living separately and the Respondent has 2/7

filed a petition in M.C.No.72 of 2024 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the Family Court, Karur seeking maintenance and the Family Court vide order dated 11.11.2024 awarded Rs.5,000/- as monthly maintenance to the Respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner is a differently-abled person who is receiving only a meager salary and is, therefore, unable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance to the Respondent. He further submits that the Family Court failed to consider that the Respondent/wife is residing separately from the Petitioner without any just or reasonable cause, and as such, she is not entitled to claim maintenance from the Petitioner. It is also submitted that the Petitioner is willing to resume cohabitation. However, the Family Court, after recording the statements of the contesting parties, without properly appreciating the facts and evidence available on record, partly allowed the application filed by the Respondent and awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month, as maintenance to the Respondent.

3/7

5. Per contra, Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Family Court has passed the impugned order after duly considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the statements of both the Petitioner and the Respondent. It is contended that, in such circumstances, and in order to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court. There is no illegality, impropriety, or perversity in the impugned order, nor does it reflect any abuse of the process of the Court.

6. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to point out any such illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order which may persuade this Court to interfere in the same. The amount fixed for maintenance was Rs.5,000/- for the Respondent, which, in the present days of rising prices and high cost of living, cannot be considered excessive or disproportionate. The provisions of Section 125 4/7

of Cr.P.C are beneficial provisions, which are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife and provide some succour to them, who are entitled to get the maintenance which cannot be denied. The fact that the Petitioner is the husband of the Respondent, has not been denied.

8. In such circumstances to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not require any interference. There is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process.

9. In view of the above, the Criminal Revision Petition lacks merit and stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

Index :Yes / No 02.09.2025 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No Nsr 5/7

To:

1.The Judge, Family Court, Karur.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

6/7

SHAMIM AHMED , J.

Nsr Order made in 02.09.2025 7/7