CRL RC No. 663 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED CRL RC No. 663 and 657 of 2026 R.Jayachandran S/o.Ravi ..Petitioner in both cases Vs 1. Pushpa W/o.R.Jayachandran 2. J.P.Sarath (Minor) S/o.Jayachandran 3. J.P.Aswanth (Minor) S/o.Jayachandran, Both 2 and 3 are minors represented by Their mother and natural guardian, S.Pushpa, 1st respondent ..Respondents in both cases COMMON PRAYER: The Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 401 of the Cr.P.C., to set aside the order of the Learned VI Addl. Family Court in Crl.M.P.No.1235 and 1236 of 2025 in M.C.No.74 of 2018 dated 29.12.2025 and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.N.Nataraaj for both cases For Respondent(s): Ms.R.M.Vidyasree FOR R1 TO R3 For both cases COMMON ORDER These Criminal Revision Cases are filed to set aside the order of the Learned VI Addl. Family Court in Crl.M.P.No.1235 and 1236 of 2025 in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 663 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 M.C.No.74 of 2018 dated 29.12.2025. 2. The facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner and the 1st Respondent got married on 03.06.2009 and the Respondents 2 & 3 are the minor male children, born to them. The 1st Respondent wife had filed MC.No.74 of 2018, seeking maintenance from the petitioner husband before the Trial Court. The learned Trial Court, vide its order dated 28.11.2019, allowed the matter in part and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the first respondent and a sum of Rs.3,000/- each to the respondents 2 & 3. In the year 2025, the first respondent filed a miscellaneous petitions before the trial Court in MP.Nos.1235 and 1236 of 2025 for enhancement of compensation. The trial Court, by the impugned order dated 29.12.2025 in MP.No.1235 of 2025, partly allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7500/- per month to the wife and Rs.6000/- each per month to the children from the date of filing until further order. The arrears of maintenance from the date of filing till date is to be paid into bank account of the wife, within three months from the date of the said order. In respect of MP.No.1236 of 2025, the trial Court has directed the petitioner to reimburse 50% of the school fees so far paid by the first respondent wife and the petitioner was further directed to bear 50% of the future school fees of both the children until further orders. Challenging the said order, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 663 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 Petitioner, seeking the relief, as stated above. 3. This Court heard Mr.K.N.Natarajan the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Ms.R.M.Vidyasree, 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. It was further submitted 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. By the impugned order, maintenance was enhanced to the tune of Rs.7,500/- p.m. to the 1st Respondent and Rs.6,000/- per month each to the Respondents 2 & 3. The learned trial Court also directed payment of 50% of the school fees. The learned counsel submitted 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. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 663 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 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.7500/- as maintenance for the 1st Respondent and Rs.6,000/- per month each to the Respondents 2 & 3, 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 1st Respondent and they got two male children, have not been denied. The amount fixed towards interim maintenance by the Court Below is Rs.7500/- for the 1st Respondent and Rs.6000/- per month each to the Respondents 2 & 3, which, in the present days of rising prices and high cost of living, cannot be considered as excessive or disproportionate or unreasonable. As a dutiful father, the petitioner is also liable to pay the school fees for the children which is sustainable. 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 accustomed. The provisions of Section 144 of BNSS are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 663 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 destitute wife/children 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 merit and hence, it is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Cases stand dismissed, as devoid of merits. There is no order as to costs. 21-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rli To The VI Additional Family Court, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 663 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 SHAMIM AHMED, J. rli CRL RC No. 663 and 657 of 2026 21-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis