Dismissed

Raghunathan v. Chinnaraj

Madras HC2 Jul 2026CRL RC/1026/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Son challenged an appellate maintenance order directing him to pay his parents Rs.8,000 monthly maintenance plus Rs.12,500 medical expenses. The court found no illegality or impropriety in the order, held such amounts reasonable given rising costs, noted Section 125 CrPC's protective purpose for destitute parents, and dismissed the revision.

What the court decided

AI extract

Raghunathan Vs Chinnaraj — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL RC No. 1026 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED CRL RC No. 1026 of 2026 AND CRL MP NO. 8327 OF 2026

¶6

Raghunathan S/o Chinnaraj, Kanchi Taluk Police Quarters, Yagasalai Mandapa Street, Behind Vishnu Kanchi Police Station, Little Kanchipuram.

¶7

..Petitioner(s)

¶8

¶9

Chinnaraj Residing at No.17, Road Street, Illanagar Village, Uthiramerur Taluk, Kancheepuram.

¶10

Indira Residing at No.17, Road Street, Illanagar Village, Uthiramerur Taluk, Kancheepuram.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

CRL MP No. 8327 of 2026 Raghunathan S/o Chinnaraj, Kanchi Taluk Police Quarters, Yagasalai Mandapa Street, Behind Vishnu Kanchi Police Station, Little Kanchipuram.

..Petitioner(s)

1. Chinnaraj

__________ Page1 of 8

¶17

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

¶18

CRL RC No. 1026 of 2026

¶19

Residing at No.17, Road Street, Illanagar Village, Uthiramerur Taluk, Kancheepuram. 2. Indira Residing at No.17, Road Street, Illanagar Village, Uthiramerur Taluk, Kancheepuram.

¶20

..Respondent(s)

¶21

CRL RC No. 1026 of 2026

¶22

PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sectino 438 and 442 of BNSS to set aside the order passed in Crl.A.No.39 of 2024 dated 20.04.2026 on the file of Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram and consequently remand the matter back to the Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram.

¶23

CRL MP No. 8327 of 2026

¶24

To Stay the order passed in MC.No.3 of 2022 dated 17.07.2023 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur pending disposal of the above Original Petition.

¶25

For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Riswan Sheriff For Respondent(s): Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar for R1 and R2

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Heard Mr.A.Riswan Sheriff, learned counsel for the Petitioner and

¶28

Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondents.

¶29

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner against

¶30

Page2 of 8

¶31

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

¶32

CRL RC No. 1026 of 2026

¶33

the impugned judgement and order dated 20.04.2026 passed by Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram in Crl.A.No.39 of 2024 by which the respondents were awarded Rs.8,000/- p.m., for maintenance and Rs.12,500/- p.m., for medical expenses from the date of the order.

¶34

Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents 1 and 2 are the parents of the petitioner. The Petitioner is employed in the police Department and is earning more than Rs.30,000/- p.m., The Petitioner has not given any financial assistance to the respondents/parents. Hence, the respondents filed a petition before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur in MC.No.3 of 2022. The trial court had directed the petitioner/son to pay the respondents/parents a sum of Rs.8,000/- p.m., for maintenance and Rs.12,500/- p.m., for medical expenses from the date of the order.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that till 2019 the petitioner had been living with the respondents in the joint family and only in 2019, he had shifted to another place. In the year 1986, a suit was filed by brother of 1^st Respondent/Chinnaraj, one Dhayalan, before the District Munsif, Kanchipuram regarding a property dispute and the final decree was ordered, with the ‘B’ schedule property being allotted to the 1^st respondent / Chinnaraj. Ever since the date of that order, the respondents have been in possession and

¶36

Page3 of 8

¶37

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

¶38

CRL RC No. 1026 of 2026

¶39

enjoyment of the said property. He further submitted that, the statement that the respondents were working as a coolie is only to grab money from the petitioner.

¶40

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the Petitioner and the respondents and also perused the records placed before this court.

¶41

It is a well-established principle that it is a man’s legal and moral duty to maintain his parents during their life time. This responsibility stems from the inherent obligation of children to care for their parents. Similarly, it is the duty of the son to provide for his parents during their old age, ensuring they are supported and cared for. This duty is not only morally imperative but also a legal obligation in many jurisdictions, where laws mandate that adult children provide financial support to their ageing parents. By fulfilling this duty, individuals demonstrate respect, gratitude, and compassion towards their parents, who have devoted themselves by nurturing and caring for their families. Ultimately, showing love and care to one's parents and prioritizing their well-being in their old age is a fundamental aspect of familial responsibility and societal values. By fulfilling this duty, individuals can ensure their parents live their later years with dignity and care.

¶42

It is the social responsibility of the son to maintain his parents, as the

¶43

Page4 of 8

¶44

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

¶45

CRL RC No. 1026 of 2026

¶46

invaluable role and care of parents cannot be compensated, no matter how much their children pay them back during their lifetime. Moreover, no amount of payment can ever bear the pain and sacrifices the parents had endured for the upbringing of their children from their birth.

¶47

In the present case, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to point out any 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.20,500/- (8000 + 12500) p.m., which includes medical expenses also for 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 the destitute parents and provide some succour to them, who are entitled to get the maintenance which cannot be denied. The fact that the Petitioner is the son of the Respondents has not been denied.

¶48

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.

¶49

__________ Page5 of 8

¶50

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

¶51

CRL RC No. 1026 of 2026

¶52

In view of the above, this court does not find any merit in the

¶53

petitioner’s case. Thus, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.

¶54

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits. The Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur is directed to proceed the matter in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the respondents is at liberty to move an application before the learned trial court for the execution of the order in MC.No.3 of 2022 dated 17.07.2023. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶55

02-07-2026

¶56

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶57

¶58

__________ Page6 of 8

¶59

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

¶60

CRL RC No. 1026 of 2026

¶61

¶62

The Principal District Judge, Kanchipuram

¶63

2.The Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur

¶64

Chinnaraj Residing at No.17, Road Street, Illanagar Village, Uthiramerur Taluk, Kancheepuram.

¶65

Indira Residing at No.17, Road Street, Illanagar Village, Uthiramerur Taluk, Kancheepuram.

¶66

__________ Page7 of 8

¶67

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

¶68

CRL RC No. 1026 of 2026

¶69

SHAMIM AHMED J.

¶70

¶71

CRL RC No. 1026 of 2026 AND CRL MP NO. 8327 OF 2026

¶72

02-07-2026

¶73

__________ Page8 of 8

¶74

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

Raghunathan v. Chinnaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Raghunathan v. Chinnaraj

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

Suresh Babu Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police

Kanagaraj Vs State rep.by

M/s. Bharat Parenterals Limited Vs Union of India

Mohafuj Hosam Badsha Vs State Rep by

S.R.Krishna Silk Twistings Vs C.Sundaravel

K.Senthilkumar Vs S.Priya