Dismissed

Balashanmugam v. Sumathi

Madras HC16 Sept 2025CRL RC(MD)/1199/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband challenged a maintenance order awarding his wife Rs.4,000 and each of two minor children Rs.5,000 per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C, contending he was a coolie with meagre income and his wife lived apart without cause. The High Court found no illegality or impropriety in the order, held the amount not excessive given rising costs, and dismissed the revision.

What the court decided

AI extract

Balashanmugam Vs Sumathi — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

CRL.R.C.(MD)No.1199 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED

¶6

CRL.R.C.(MD)No.1199 of 2025 and CRL.M.P.(MD)No.11608 of 2025

Balashanmugam

... Petitioner

vs.

1.Sumathi W/o.Balashanmugam, 62, Othaveedu, Keelarangiyam, Allinagaram Post, Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District. 2.Minor B.Gokulraj, S/o.Balashanmugam, 62, Othaveedu, Keelarangiyam, Allinagaram Post, Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District. 3.Minor B.Kaleeswaran, S/o.Balashanmugam, 62,Othaveedu, Keelarangiyam, Allinagaram Post, Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District. (The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are represented through the respondent No.1) ... Respondents

¶11

1/6

¶12

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

¶13

CRL.R.C.(MD)No.1199 of 2025

¶14

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records of the learned District Munsifcum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppuvanam in M.C.No.4 of 2022 and to set aside the order, dated 30.05.2025 and allow the Criminal Revision.

¶15

For Petitioner :Mr.P.Saravanakumar For Respondent :Mr.A.Karthick *****

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Heard Mr.P.Saravanakumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

¶18

2.This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned judgement and order, dated 30.05.2025 passed in M.C.No.4 of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruppuvanam, by which the first respondent/wife was awarded Rs.4,000/-per month, and the respondents 2 and 3 were awarded Rs.5,000/- each per month as maintenance.

¶19

3.Mr.P.Saravana Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the first respondent are husband and wife. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent

¶20

2/6

¶21

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

¶22

CRL.R.C.(MD)No.1199 of 2025

¶23

was solemnized on 10.09.2004. Due to difference of opinion, they are living separately and the first respondent has filed a petition in M.C.No.4 of 2022 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the District Munsif-cumJudicial Magistrate Court, Thiruppuvanam, seeking maintenance and the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppuvanam, vide judgment and order, dated 30.05.2025, awarded Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to the first respondent and Rs.5,000/- per month each to the respondents 2 and 3, in total Rs.14,000/- per month.

¶24

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is working as a coolie and receiving only a meager salary and is, therefore, unable to pay a sum of Rs.14,000/- per month towards maintenance to the respondents. He further submits that the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppuvanam, had failed to consider that the first respondent/wife is residing separately from the petitioner without any just or reasonable cause, and as such, she is not entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner is willing to resume cohabitation. However, the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppuvanam, after recording

¶25

3/6

¶26

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

¶27

CRL.R.C.(MD)No.1199 of 2025

¶28

the statements of the contesting parties, without properly appreciating the facts and evidence available on record, allowed the application filed by

¶29

the respondents and awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to the first respondent and Rs.5,000/- per month each to the respondents 2 and 3, in total Rs.14,000/- per month.

¶30

I have considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record.

¶31

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any such illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order which may persuade this Court to interfere in the same. The amount fixed for maintenance was Rs.14,000/- per month to the respondents, which, in the present days of rising prices and high cost of living, cannot be considered excessive or disproportionate. The provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C are beneficial provisions, which 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

¶32

4/6

¶33

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

¶34

CRL.R.C.(MD)No.1199 of 2025

¶35

denied. The fact that the petitioner is the husband of the first respondent, has not been denied.

¶36

In such circumstances to meet the ends of justice, the 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.

¶37

In view of the above, the Criminal Revision Petition lacks merit and stands dismissed . Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶38

Index :Yes / No 16.09.2025 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No cmr To

¶39

The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppuvanam.

¶40

5/6

¶41

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

¶42

CRL.R.C.(MD)No.1199 of 2025

¶43

SHAMIM AHMED, J.

¶44

cmr

¶45

CRL.R.C.(MD)No.1199 of 2025

¶46

16.09.2025

¶47

6/6

¶48

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

Balashanmugam v. Sumathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Balashanmugam v. Sumathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mythili Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Manisekaran Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Manisekaran Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Muthuraj Vs Karuppazhagu

Nirmala Vs K.Murugan

Chandrababu Vs The State of Tamil Nadu