Sathish Kumar v. Bhavatharani

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED and CRL.M.P.(MD)No.11804 of 2025 Sathish Kumar S/o.Krishnamoorthi, No.460-33, Muthuramalinga Thevar Street, Cumbum, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.

... Petitioner vs.

1.Bhavatharani W/o.Sathish Kumar, No.16, Kurinchi Nagar, St.Charles Convent Road, Thanakankulam, Madurai - 625 006.

2.Lakshitha (Minor) 3.Veda Vidula (Minor) ... Respondents (Respondents 2 and 3 are represented through the first respondent as Mother/Natural Guardian) PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records of the impugned order, dated 11.08.2025 passed in M.C.No.13 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Madurai and to set aside the same. 1/6

For Petitioner :Mr.C.Senthil Murugan *****

O R D E R

Heard Mr.C.Senthil Murugan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2.This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned judgement and order, dated 11.08.2025 passed in M.C.No.13 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Madurai, by which the first respondent/wife was awarded Rs.10,000/-per month, and the respondents 2 and 3 were awarded Rs.10,000/- each per month as maintenance. 3.Mr.C.Senthil Murugan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the first respondent are husband and wife. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 10.06.2006. Due to difference of opinion, they are living separately and the first respondent has filed a petition in M.C.No. 13 of 2023 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Madurai, seeking maintenance and the 2/6

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Madurai, vide judgment and order, dated 11.08.2025, awarded Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to the first respondent and Rs.10,000/- per month each to the respondents 2 and 3, in total Rs.30,000/- per month.

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is receiving only a meager salary and is, therefore, unable to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month towards maintenance to the respondents. He further submits that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Madurai, failed to consider that the first 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 the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Madurai, after recording the statements of the contesting parties, without properly appreciating the facts and evidence available on record, allowed the application filed by the respondents and awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to the first 3/6

respondent and Rs.10,000/- per month each to the respondents 2 and 3, in total Rs.30,000/- per month.

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

6. 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.10,000/- per month for each of the respondents, which, in the present days of rising prices and high cost of living, cannot be considered excessive or disproportionate. The provisions of Section 125 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 first respondent, has not been denied.

4/6

7. 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.

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

Index :Yes / No 04.09.2025 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No cmr To The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. 5/6

SHAMIM AHMED, J.

cmr 04.09.2025 6/6