Dismissed¶27

Kariyamal, v. Minor. Anbarasi

Madras HC23 Jul 2025CRL RC(MD)/60/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.60 of 2025, Madras High Court Madurai Bench, L.Victoria Gowri J., 23.07.2025 — maintenance Rs.5,000/- p.m. each upheld; DNA test not conducted; tattoo of another man's name not conclusive proof of adultery; birth certificate relied on; Sections 438 & 442 BNSS 2023; Family Court Theni M.C.No.158 of 2022; ex parte divorce decree H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2020; paternity; minor children; guardianship Maheswari.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the revision petitioner; the Family Court maintenance direction of Rs.5,000/- per month to each petitioner therein stands, and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.758 of 2025 is also dismissed with the connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶27

Kariyamal, Vs Minor. Anbarasi — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the Criminal Revision against the Family Court, Theni order directing payment of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to each petitioner therein should be allowed, in view of the respondent's contentions that the third petitioner (a minor son) was not born to him and that the first petitioner had an illegal relationship with one Thangaraj (evidenced, he claimed, by a tattoo of that name on her hand), and absent any DNA test to prove paternity.

¶22

Court's answer

This Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court (Family Court, Theni) awarding maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to each of the petitioners therein; accordingly the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Endorsing the Trial Court's reasoning, the Court held that no steps were taken by the respondent therein to conduct a DNA test on the third petitioner and himself to prove the paternity of the child, and that a woman tattooing the name of somebody else on her hand is not conclusive evidence that she had an illegal relationship with that person; relying on the birth certificate of the third petitioner, the maintenance order was rightly passed.

¶22

Key takeaways

The revision petitioner is at liberty to set aside the ex parte divorce decree in H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2020 and take necessary steps to determine the paternity of the minor child, if so advised.obiter¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maintenance under BNSS revision — Family Court, Theni, in M.C.No.158 of 2022 (order dated 02.09.2024) directed the respondent-husband to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to each petitioner therein. Husband's revision contended the third petitioner minor son was not born to him and that the first petitioner (wife) had an illegal relationship with one Thangaraj, as shown by a tattoo of his name on her right hand. Held: the respondent took no steps to conduct a DNA test to prove paternity; a woman tattooing another person's name is not conclusive evidence of an illegal relationship; relying on the child's birth certificate the Trial Court rightly awarded maintenance. Finding no infirmity in the Trial Court order, the Criminal Revision Case and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.758 of 2025 were dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to set aside the ex parte divorce decree in H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2020 and pursue paternity determination.

¶1

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.60 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.60 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.757 and 758 of 2025

Kariyamal

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.Minor Anbarasi

2.Minor Yuvaraj Pandian (1^st and 2^nd Respondents are represented through their mother/guardian Maheswari) ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 and 442 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed in M.C.No.158 of 2022 dated 02.09.2024 on the file of the Family Court, Theni and set aside the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Aruljenifer For Respondents : Mr.D.Raja Boopathy

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Challenging the order passed by the learned Family Court, Theni, in

¶16

M.C.No.158 of 2022 dated 02.09.2024, this Criminal Revision Petition is filed.

¶17

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

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.60 of 2025

¶20

2.Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.

¶21

3.The learned Judge, Family Court, passed an order, directing the respondent therein to give maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to each of the petitioners therein.

¶22

4.However, it is recorded in paragraph no.8 of the impugned order that at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent therein placed a submission that the third petitioner minor son was not born to him. The learned counsel further submitted that the first petitioner therein had illegal relationship with one Thangaraj pointing out that she had tattooed the name of Thangaraj in her right hand. However, the learned Trial Court had rightly observed that no steps have taken on the side of the respondent therein to conduct DNA test on the third petitioner and the respondent therein to prove the paternity of the child and that apart, the learned Trial Court rightly concluded that only because a women had tatooed the name of some body else, it would not be a conclusive evidence that she had got illegal relationship with a person whose name is tatooed in her hand. Relying upon the birth certificate of the third petitioner therein, the learned Trial Court had rightly passed an order of maintenance, directing the respondent therein to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 4

¶24

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.60 of 2025

¶25

each every month to the petitioners therein.

¶26

5.Hence, this Court do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2020 is filed by the wife and an exparte decree has been passed in the said case, due to the non appearance of the petitioner herein. However, the petitioner is at liberty to set aside the said H.M.O.P. and take necessary steps to determine the paternity of the minor child, if so advised.

¶27

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. In view of the above, Crl.M.P.(MD)No.758 of 2025 is also dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶28

23.07.2025

¶29

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes Mrn

¶30

¶31

1.The Judge, Family Court, Theni.

¶32

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

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34