CRL RC No. 2398 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED CRL RC No. 2398 of 2024 AND CRL MP NO. 18451 OF 2024 M.Anbu ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. J.Indira 2. Mithun Karthik Rep By Him Mother And Natural, Guardian J.Indira (the 1st Respondent) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER – This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, to set aside the order passed in M.C.No.185 of 2015 dated 18.09.2024 on the file of the V- Additional Principal Judge, V-Additional Family Court at Chennai. For Petitioner(s): Mr.B.Venugopal For Respondent(s): Ms.S.Revathy O R D E R This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the judgment passed by the V Additional Principal Judge, V-Additional Family Court at Chennai in M.C.No.185 of 2015 dated 18.09.2024. __________ Page1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 2398 of 2024 2.The facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner and the 1st Respondent got married on 19.12.2012 and the 2nd Respondent is the minor male child, born to them. The 1st Respondent had filed M.C.No.185 of 2015, seeking interim maintenance before the Trial Court. In the said M.C.No.185 of 2015 filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., by the impunged order of the Trial Court, a sum of Rs.25,000/- p.m. was ordered to be paid to the Respondents (Rs.10,000/- to the 1st Respondent and Rs.15,000/- to the minor child/2nd Respondent) as an interim maintenance. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner, challenging the same. 3.This Court heard Mr.B.Venugopal, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Ms.S.Revathy, the learned counsel for the Respondents. 4.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the court below failed to appreciate the fact that the 1st 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 1st Respondent, the Trial Court had passed the impugned order, granting interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.25,000/- p.m. to the 1st Respondent and the minor child/2nd 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 __________ Page2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 2398 of 2024 allowed, as prayed for. 5.On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents 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.25,000/- as interim maintenance for the 1st Respondent and her minor child/2nd 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 facts that the Revision Petitioner is the husband of the 1st Respondent and they got a minor male child/2nd Respondent, have not been denied. The amount fixed towards interim maintenance by the Court Below is Rs.25,000/- for the 1st Respondent and the female child/2nd 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 Respondents, by the courts below is adequate, fair and reasonable __________ Page3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 2398 of 2024 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 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 orders and this Criminal Revision Case lacks merits and hence, it is liable to be dismissed. 9.In the result, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed, as devoid of merits. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 03-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GSA __________ Page4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 2398 of 2024 To 1. The V Additional Principal Judge, V-Additional Family Court, Chennai. 2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. __________ Page5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 2398 of 2024 SHAMIM AHMED J. GSA CRL RC No. 2398 of 2024 AND CRL MP NO. 18451 OF 2024 03-07-2026 __________ Page6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis