CRL RC No. 1445 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED CRL RC No. 1445 of 2025 Mohana Krishnan ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Poovizhi 2. Minor.Riya D/o.Mohana Krishnan, Rep. by her mother 1st Petitioner Poovizhi ..Respondent(s) PRAYER – This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 438 r/w Section 442 of B.N.S.S, to set aside the order dated 11.10.2023 in M.C.No.222 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore. For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Anandhamoorthy For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Prasanth For Mr.K.Sudhakar O R D E R This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the judgment passed by the Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore in M.C.No. 222 of 2019 dated 11.10.2023. 2.The facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner and the 1st Respondent got married on 25.03.2015 and the 2nd Respondent is the minor female child, born to them on 14.06.2016. The 1st Respondent had filed __________ Page1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1445 of 2025 M.C.No.222 of 2019, seeking interim maintenance before the Trial Court. In the said M.C.No.222 of 2019 filed under Section 125(1)(a)(b) of Cr.P.C., by the impunged order of the Trial Court, a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m. was ordered to be paid to the Respondents (Rs.10,000/- to the 1st Respondent and Rs.5,000/- to the minor female 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.V.Anandhamoorthy, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.M.Prasanth, 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.15,000/- p.m. to the 1st Respondent and the minor female 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 allowed, as prayed for. __________ Page2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1445 of 2025 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.15,000/- as interim maintenance for the 1st Respondent and her female 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 female child/2nd Respondent, have not been denied. The amount fixed towards interim maintenance by the Court Below is Rs.15,000/- 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 and consistent with the standard of living, to which the aggrieved person is __________ Page3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1445 of 2025 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. 06-07-2026 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. 1445 of 2025 To 1. The Additional Judge, Principal Family, Coimbatore, 2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. __________ Page5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1445 of 2025 SHAMIM AHMED J. GSA CRL RC No. 1445 of 2025 06-07-2026 __________ Page6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis