Dismissed¶52

Saravanakumar v. Shenbagavalli

Madras HC25 Sept 2025CRL RC(MD)/1113/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision under Ss.438/442 BNSS 2023 against Family Court Tirunelveli order imposing Rs.5,000/- costs while condoning 275-day delay to set aside ex parte Section 125 Cr.P.C maintenance order (Rs.15,000/- per month total to wife and minor daughter); grounds: interference with interlocutory/costs order, excessiveness of maintenance, rising cost of living, destitute wife, vagrancy prevention, non-payment of imposed costs, arrears recovery; result: revision dismissed, no order as to costs, connected CRL MP(MD)No.11150 of 2025 closed.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed, the Family Court, Tirunelveli was directed to proceed in accordance with law for recovery of arrears, there was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition (CRL MP(MD)No.11150 of 2025) was closed.

Saravanakumar Vs Shenbagavalli — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 01.03.2025 passed in Cr.M.P.No.194 of 2024 in M.C.No.26 of 2020 by the Family Court, Tirunelveli, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs for allowing the condonation-of-delay petition, warrants interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 438/442 BNSS, 2023. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

There is no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order dated 01.03.2025, it does not require any interference, and there is no abuse of the process of the Court.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The maintenance of Rs.15,000/- fixed for the respondent and her minor daughter cannot be considered excessive or disproportionate given the current rising prices and high cost of living.

¶38

Key takeaways

Section 125 Cr.P.C. embodies beneficial provisions enacted to prevent the vagrancy of a destitute wife; the petitioner's status as husband of the respondent and father of minor daughter Vishnu Priya was not denied; the Family Court rightly considered the petitioner/husband's statements and awarded maintenance, in which this Court finds no illegality or infirmity.ratio¶39
Without paying the Rs.5,000/- costs imposed for the condonation of delay, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the order dated 01.03.2025; the Court found no merit in the petition and held it liable to be dismissed.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (Shamim Ahmed, J.), in a Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023, challenged the Family Court, Tirunelveli's order dated 01.03.2025 in Cr.M.P.No.194 of 2024 in M.C.No.26 of 2020, whereby the petitioner-husband was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs for allowing his application to condone a 275-day delay in seeking to set aside the ex parte maintenance order dated 01.08.2023 (Rs.7,500/- per month each to the wife and minor daughter, totalling Rs.15,000/- per month, under Section 125 Cr.P.C). Held: the learned counsel could point to no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order; the maintenance of Rs.15,000/- was not excessive or disproportionate given rising prices and the high cost of living; Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a beneficial provision to prevent the vagrancy of a destitute wife, and the petitioner's status as husband and father was not denied; moreover, the petitioner filed the revision without even paying the Rs.5,000/- costs imposed. The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed, the Family Court was directed to proceed in accordance with law for recovery of arrears, there was no order as to costs, and the connected CRL MP(MD)No.11150 of 2025 was closed.

¶1

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1113 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 25.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED

¶6

CRL.R.C.(MD)No.1113 of 2025 and CRL MP(MD)No.11150 of 2025

¶7

Saravanakumar, S/o.M.Oorkavalan, No.229, 4^th Main Road, Green City, Perumal Pattu, Thiruvallur – 602 024. ... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

Shenbagavalli, W/o.Saravanakumar, Door No.2/300, Main Road Colony, Sethuroyanpudur, Ramaiyanpatti, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023, to set aside the order dated 01.03.2025 passed in Cr.M.P.No.194 of 2024 in M.C.No.26 of 2020 on the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli allowing this Criminal Revision Case.

¶11

1/8

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1113 of 2025

¶14

For Petitioner :Ms.S.Vinodha For Respondent :Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Heard Ms.S.Vinodha, learned counsel for the Petitioner and

¶18

Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan, learned counsel for the Respondent.

¶19

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner

¶20

to set aside the impugned order dated 01.03.2025 passed in Cr.M.P.No. 194 of 2024 in M.C.No.26 of 2020 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs to the respondent on or before 10.03.2025, for allowing the petition to condone the delay, failing which the said petition would be dismissed.

¶21

Ms.S.Vinodha, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that

¶22

the Petitioner and the Respondent are husband and wife. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on

¶23

2/8

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1113 of 2025

¶26

15.09.2011. Out of their wedlock, one daughter viz., Vishnu Priya was born to them. Due to difference of opinion, they are living separately and the Respondent has filed a petition in M.C.No.26 of 2020 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the Family Court, Tirunelveli seeking maintenance and the Family Court vide order dated 01.08.2023 awarded Rs.7,500/- to the 1^st Respondent and Rs.7,500/- to the 2^nd Respondent, totalling Rs.15,000/- per month, as maintenance allowance.

¶27

The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Family Court, Tirunelveli passed an exparte order. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.194 of 2024 to condone the delay of 275 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte order. However, the Family Court, Tirunelveli vide order dated 01.03.2025 in Cr.M.P.No. 194 of 2024 directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost to the Respondent for allowing the petition to condone the delay filed by the Petitioner. Aggrieved over the same, the Petitioner filed the present Criminal Revision Petition.

¶28

3/8

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1113 of 2025

¶31

Per contra, Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the Family Court 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. He contended that the petitioner, without paying the costs imposed by the Family Court and having outstanding arrears, has filed the present petition, which lacks merit. He argued that the petitioner's noncompliance with the order passed by the Family Court renders the present petition untenable. 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. There is no illegality, impropriety, or perversity in the impugned order, nor does it reflect any abuse of the process of the Court.

¶32

I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the

¶33

parties and also perused the record.

¶34

4/8

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1113 of 2025

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point

¶38

out any illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness in the impugned order that may persuade this Court to interfere with it. The amount fixed for maintenance, Rs.15,000/- for the respondent and her minor daughter, cannot be considered excessive or disproportionate given the current rising prices and high cost of living.

¶39

The provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are beneficial provisions enacted to prevent the vagrancy of a destitute wife and provide some succor to those entitled to receive maintenance, which cannot be denied. The fact that the petitioner is the husband of the respondent and the father of their minor daughter, Vishnu Priya, has not been denied. Therefore, the Court below has rightly taken into consideration the statements filed by the petitioner/husband and awarded maintenance, in which this Court finds no illegality or infirmity.

¶40

5/8

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1113 of 2025

¶43

Furthermore, the petitioner is directed to pay only Rs. 5,000/- as

¶44

costs to the respondent for the condonation of delay application. However, without paying the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this Revision Petition challenging the order dated 01.03.2025. This Court finds no merit in the petition, and it is liable to be dismissed.

¶45

In such circumstances to meet the ends of justice, the

¶46

impugned order does not require any interference. There is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process.

¶47

Thus, this Court does not find any merit in the Petitioner's case

¶48

and the Family Court, Tirunelveli had rightly passed the order in Cr.M.P.No.194 of 2024 in M.C.No.26 of 2020 dated 01.03.2025.

¶49

6/8

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1113 of 2025

¶52

In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Petition lacks merit and stands dismissed and the Family Court, Tirunelveli is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law for recovery of arrears amount. The file is consigned to record. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶53

Index :Yes / No Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No Nsr

¶54

25.09.2025

¶55

To:

¶56