A.Jacobraja v. Elizabeth

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 05.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and CMP(MD) No.20422 of 2025 A.Jacobraja ... Petitioner Vs Elizabeth ... Respondent PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 10.07.2025 made in IA No.1 of 2024 in IDOP No.303 of 2023 on the file of Additional District Court (FTC), Tenkasi.

For Petitioner : Ms.K.Abiya

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 10.07.2025 made in IA.No.1 of 2024 in IDOP.No.303 of 2023 on the file of the Additional District Court (FTC), Tenkasi, by which, the respondent/wife was awarded Rs.7,000/- per month towards maintenance.

1/6

2.The petitioner and the respondent are the husband and wife and the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 27.01.2020, according to Christian Rites and Customs. Due to difference of opinion, the petitioner/husband has filed a petition in IDOP.No.303 of 2023 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and the respondent/wife has filed a petition in IDOP.No.695 of 2023 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Both the petitions are pending before the Additional District Court (FTC), Tenkasi. Pending such petitions, the respondent filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 in IDOP.No.303 of 2023 seeking maintenance and the Court below, vide order, dated 10.07.2025, awarded a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month to the respondent towards maintenance. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds of Revision would submit that the petitioner is doing Coolie work with a meager income, which is insufficient to support his family and maintain his elderly parents and is, therefore, unable to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month towards maintenance to the respondent.

respondent and her family is earning sufficient income from their agricultural land. However, the Court below, without properly appreciating the facts and evidence available on record, erroneously allowed the application filed by the respondent and awarded a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month to the respondent towards maintenance. Hence, he prays for appropriate orders.

4.I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record. Since no adverse order is going to be passed against the respondent, notice to the respondent is dispensed with.

5.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 with the same. The amount fixed for maintenance was Rs.7,000/- per month to the respondent, which, in the present days of rising prices and high cost of living, cannot be considered excessive or disproportionate. The 3/6

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 respondent, has not been denied.

6.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.

7.In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition lacks merit and stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.

Speaking : Yes / No 05.01.2026 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No mm 4/6

To The Additional District Judge, (FTC), Tenkasi. 5/6

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

mm 05.01.2026 6/6