R.Parthiban v. M.Sathya

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and C.M.P.(MD)No.609 of 2026 R.Parthiban ... Petitioner -vs.- M.Sathya

...Respondent

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the docket order, dated 17.10.2025 passed in I.A.No.01 of 2025 in H.M.O.P.No.231 of 2024 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Uthamapalayam.

For Petitioner :Ms.V.T.Harshini For Respondent :Mr.N.Jayaram Sidharth *****

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Uthamapalayam, in I.A.No.01 of 2025 in H.M.O.P.No.231 of 2024, dated 17.10.2025. 2.Heard Ms.V.T.Harshini, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.N.Jayaram Sidharth, learned Counsel for the respondent. 3.The petitioner is the husband the respondent is the wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 08.09.2021. Out of their wedlock, a male child was born to them on 14.05.2022. Due to misunderstanding arose between them, both of them are living separately and the petitioner herein has filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.231 of 2024 before the Subordinate Court, Uthamapalayam, for divorce on the ground of desertion. The respondent herein has filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.27 of 2024 before the same Court for restitution of conjugal rights. During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent herein has filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in

H.M.O.P.No.231 of 2024 seeking interim maintenance of Rs.40,000/-. After hearing the parties, the Court below, vide impugned order, dated 17.10.2025, had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court ought not to have allowed the application without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since the respondent herein is an MBA graduate and she is employed as an Assistant Professor in a private educational institution at Theni. The learned Counsel also submitted that even though the petitioner is employed, the trial Court has not taken into consideration the daily expenses and the rental amount paid by the petitioner. It is her further submission that the petitioner is also taking care of his age old mother, who is suffering from age old ailments and that the petitioner has to meet out her medical expenses also. She further submitted that without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without properly analysing the affidavit filed by

the respondent, which lacks bereft of details, has passed the impugned order, which needs interference of this Court.

5.The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted the petitioner is working as a male Nurse in the Government Hospital and has drawing a sum of Rs.80,000/- per month and he is a wealthy person, having a house worth of Rs.20,00,000/- and that he has not given a single penny to maintain her as well as their child. He also submitted that the trial Court after considering the entire facts and materials available on record, has passed the impugned order, which does not warrant interference of this Court and hence, he seeks dismissal of this petition.

6.This Court considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7.It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 08.09.2021 and out of their wedlock, a male child was born to them on 14.05.2022. Since there was a

misunderstanding between them, they are living separately and they filed petitions for divorce (by the petitioner) and for restitution of conjugal rights (by the respondent). During the said proceedings, the respondent herein has filed an application seeking interim maintenance and the trial Court vide impugned order, had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as interim maintenance.

8.The primary contention of the petitioner is that the respondent is an MBA graduate and is working as an Assistant Professor in a private College at Theni. However, the petitioner has not pleaded anything before the trial Court in the assets and liabilities and he has not filed any substantial evidence before the Court below. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted by this Court. Further, the trial Court after taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is working as a male Nurse in the Government College and is drawing a sum of Rs.80,000/-, has passed the impugned order directing to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent as well as to the child, which is in the considered view of this Court, does not warrant interference of this Court. Further, this Court does not find any infirmity or irregularity in the order

passed by the Court below.

9.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 10.At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the child, who is three years old, is suffering from diabetic and seeks a direction from this Court for appropriate for orders directing the petitioner to pay further sum to meet out the medical expenses of the child. 11.The respondent/wife is at liberty to file an application before the trial Court claiming for medical expenses from the petitioner and the trial Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after perusal of the medical records. 12.02.2026 Internet :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No

cmr To The Subordinate Judge, Uthamapalayam.

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

cmr 12.02.2026