CRL RC No. 1232 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED CRL RC No. 1232 of 2026 Rajkumar ..Petitioner Vs 1. Dhanalakshmi 2. Minor R.Thamilarasan S/o.Rajkumar, D.No. 12C.D, Moorthy Nagar, Pappanaickampalayam, Tirupur. (2nd respondent minor Children Rep. by his natural guardian mother 1st respondent) ..Respondents PRAYER: To call for the records and set aside the maintenance order dated 07.07.2025 in MC.NO.61 of 2022 on the file of learned Family Court, Tiruppur allowing the above Criminal Revision Petition. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Rajalingam .P For Respondent(s): Mr. S.Mohamed Sahith Ali ORDER This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the maintenance order dated 07.07.2025 in MC.NO.61 of 2022 on the file of learned Family Court, Tiruppur. 2. The facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner and the 1st https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1232 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 Respondent got married on 22.09.2021 and the 2nd Respondent is the minor male child, born to them. The 1st Respondent had filed MC.No.61 of 2022, seeking maintenance before the Trial Court. The learned Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 07.07.2025, a sum of Rs.8,000/- p.m. was ordered to be paid to the Respondents (Rs.4,000/- to the 1st Respondent and Rs.4,000/- to the male child/2nd Respondent) as maintenance. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner, seeking the relief, as stated above. 3. This Court heard Mr.Rajalingam.P, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.S.Mohamed Sahith Ali, 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 maintenance to the tune of Rs.8,000/- p.m. to the 1st Respondents and the male 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1232 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 allowed, as prayed for. 5. On the other hand, the 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.8,000/- as maintenance for the 1st Respondent and her male 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.8,000/- for the 1st Respondent and the male 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, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1232 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 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 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. There is no order as to costs. 02-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rli https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1232 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 To The Judge, Family Court, Tirupur. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1232 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 SHAMIM AHMED, J. rli CRL RC No. 1232 of 2026 02-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis