CRL RC No. 1952 of 2024 __________ Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED CRL RC No. 1952 of 2024 R.Karthikeyan S/o.Radha Krishnan, Door No.72, Fci Residential Colony, Ganapathy, Coimbatore District - 641 006. ..Petitioner(s) Vs Varsha Menon W/o.R.Karthikeyan, D/o.Thekkupattu Mani, Door No.8, Vidhya Colony, Edayarpalayam Velandipalayam Post, Coimbatore District - 641 025 Alwo No.14, Thiruvannamalai Nagar, Kalpatti Road, Saravanampatti, Coimbatore District - 641 035. ..Respondent(s) Criminal Revision filed under Section 438 of BNSS, 2023 read with Section 397 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 20.03.2024 in M.C.No.203 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Family Judge, Coimbatore. For Petitioner(s): MR.A.Parthasarathy For Respondent(s): MR.S.Lakshmi Narayanan ORDER This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order dated 20.03.2024 in M.C.No.203 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Family Judge, Coimbatore. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1952 of 2024 __________ Page2 of 5 2. The facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner and the 1st Respondent got married on 25.05.2014. The Respondent had filed MC.No.203 of 2018, seeking maintenance before the Trial Court. The learned Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 20.03.2024, ordered a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m. to be paid to the Respondent as maintenance. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner, seeking the relief, to set aside the order dated 20.03.2024. 3. This Court heard Mr.A.Parthasarathy, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.S.Lakshmi Narayanan, the learned counsel for the Respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the court below failed to appreciate the fact that the Respondent voluntarily refused to live with him, without any reasonable cause and that without considering the liabilities and the financial status of the Revision Petitioner and also the source of income available to the Respondent, the Trial Court had passed the impugned order, granting maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000/- p.m. to the Respondent and that without proper application of mind, the impugned order had been passed in a mechanical manner and hence, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed, as prayed for. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1952 of 2024 __________ Page3 of 5 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the Trial Court had 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. The amount of Rs.15,000/- as maintenance for the Respondent, is not excessive. There is no illegality, impropriety, or perversity in the impugned order, nor does it reflect any abuse of the process of the Court. 6. This Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the entire materials placed on record. 7. The fact that the Revision Petitioner is the husband of the Respondent, have not been denied. The amount fixed towards maintenance by the Court below is Rs.15,000/- for the Respondent, which, in the present days of rising prices and high cost of living, cannot be considered as excessive or disproportionate or unreasonable. The said monetary relief granted to the Respondent, by the courts below is adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living, to which the aggrieved person is accustomed. The provisions of Section 144 of BNSS are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife and provide some succour to them, who are https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1952 of 2024 __________ Page4 of 5 entitled to get the maintenance, which cannot be denied. Further, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned orders, granting such quantum of maintenance, warranting interference by this Court. 8. In such circumstances, to meet the ends of justice, the impugned orders does not require any interference by this Court, as this court does not find any illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order and this Criminal Revision Case lack merits and hence, it is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed, as devoid of merits. There is no order as to costs. 06-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rli To The Principal Family Judge, Coimbatore. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1952 of 2024 __________ Page5 of 5 SHAMIM AHMED, J. rli CRL RC No. 1952 of 2024 06-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis