Husband and sons challenged a Family Court order awarding Rs.21,000 monthly maintenance to the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The High Court held the maintenance amount not excessive and found no illegality in the impugned order.
None; revision petition dismissed and connected miscellaneous petition closed, upholding the maintenance award.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1282 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL.R.C.(MD)No.1282 of 2025 and CRL MP(MD)No.13122 of 2025
1.R.Ananda Prakash, S/o.Late Rajendran 2.A.Ashwin, S/o.R.Ananda Prakash 3.A.Gururaj S/o.R.Anada Prakash ... Petitioners
vs. A.Malarvizhi, W/o.R.Ananda Prakash, No.49,Railway Feeder Road, East 1st Street, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District. Temporarily Residing at No.4/141,Lake Area, Uthangudi, Melur Main Road, Madurai Town,
1/9
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1282 of 2025
... Respondent
Madurai District.
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertains to the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Madurai in M.C.No.64 of 2019, dated 18.03.2025 and to set aside the same.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.TamilMani
O R D E R
Heard Mr.N.TamilMani, learned counsel for the Petitioners. Since
the Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself and in view of the order to be passed in this petition, notice to the Respondent is dispensed with.
against the impugned judgement and order dated 18.03.2025 passed by Family Court, Madurai in M.C.No.64 of 2019 by which the Respondent was awarded Rs.21,000/-per month, as maintenance allowance.
2/9
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1282 of 2025
3/9
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1282 of 2025
1 st
1st Petitioner, who is over 60 years old, is suffering from health issues and is currently resting at home without any source of income. The 2nd Petitioner's income is meager, and he is struggling to manage his expenses, including purchasing medicines for his father, as well as taking care of his wife and children. The 3rd Petitioner, who is working in Bangalore, has an insufficient income to meet his own expenditures and often requires financial support from the 2nd Petitioner. It is also submitted that the Respondent has been living separately since 2015 and only filed the maintenance petition in 2019, nearly four years after the separation.
4/9
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1282 of 2025
therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance from the Petitioners. It is also submitted that the Petitioners are willing to take care of the Respondent, who is their wife and mother. However, the Family Court, after recording the statements of the contesting parties, failed to properly appreciate the facts and evidence on record and partly allowed the application filed by the respondent, awarding her a sum of Rs. 21,000/per month as maintenance.
5/9
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1282 of 2025
a legal obligation in many jurisdictions, where laws mandate that adult children provide financial support to their aging parents. By fulfilling this duty, individuals demonstrate respect, gratitude, and compassion towards their mothers, who have devoted themselves to nurturing and caring for their families. Ultimately, showing favour to one's mother and prioritizing her well-being in old age is a fundamental aspect of familial responsibility and societal values. By fulfilling this duty, individuals can ensure their mothers live their later years with dignity and care.
6/9
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1282 of 2025
in the impugned order which may persuade this Court to interfere in the same. The amount fixed for maintenance was Rs.21,000/- for the Respondent, 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/mother and provide some succour to them, who are entitled to get the maintenance which cannot be denied. The fact that the 1st Petitioner is the husband of the Respondent and 2nd and 3rd Petitioners are sons of the 1st Petitioner and the Respondent, has not been denied.
7/9
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1282 of 2025
and the Family Court, Madurai had rightly passed the order in M.C.No.64 of 2019 dated 18.03.2025. In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.
stands dismissed and the Family Court, Madurai is directed to proceed the matter in accordance with law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
Index :Yes / No 23.09.2025 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No Nsr
To:
8/9
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1282 of 2025
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Nsr
Order made in Crl.R.C(MD)No.1282 of 2025
23.09.2025
9/9
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Family Court's award of Rs.21,000 per month maintenance to the respondent wife was liable to interference in revision.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R.Ananda Prakash
A.Ashwin
A.Gururaj
A.Malarvizhi
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
