Dismissed¶28

Subramani v. Kalleswari

Madras HC20 Aug 2025CRL RC(MD)/558/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance — ex parte order — condonation of 74 days' delay — Section 151 C.P.C. — Criminal Revision under Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS, 2023 — Family Court, Sivagangai — monthly maintenance Rs.6,300/- — husband's pleas of penury and wife's voluntary departure from matrimonial home — wife's allegation of starvation — no interference with dismissal of delay condonation petition — Criminal Revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the Criminal Revision was dismissed and the impugned order was left undisturbed. ¶28

Subramani Vs Kalleswari — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.558 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 20.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.558 of 2025

Subramani

... Petitioner

vs.

Kalleswari ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of the BNSS, 2023, to call for the records and set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.248 of 2024 in M.C.No.9 of 2024, dated 12.11.2024 on the file of the learned Family Court, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Santhanam Rajesh Kumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Perumal

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Challenging the order passed by the learned Family Court, Sivagangai, in Crl.M.P.No.248 of 2024 in M.C.No.9 of 2024 dated 12.11.2024, this criminal cevision case is filed.

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.558 of 2025

¶18

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 151 C.P.C., seeking

¶19

to condone the delay of 74 days for filing the petition to set aside the exparte order passed by the learned Family Judge in M.C.No.9 of 2024 dated 16.04.2024.

¶20

The learned Family Judge had dismissed the the said application, recording the absence of the petitioner, and had passed an order of maintenance directing the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.6,300/-. Challenging the same, seeking to condone a delay of 74 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order, the petitioner had filed an application and the same was dismissed by the learned Family Judge, Sivagangai. Challenging the same, this Criminal Revision case is filed.

¶21

This Court required the petitioner and the respondent to appear and had a dialogue with both of them and tried to sensitize the petitioner about his duty to pay maintenance duly every month. Despite the same, the petitioner was adamant enough that he is suffering penury and he is

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.558 of 2025

¶25

not at the responsibility of paying any maintenance to his wife for the reason that she had voluntarily left the matrimonial home.

¶26