B. Pradhap Vs R.Geetha Rani

Ananiya, Minor, Rep.by mother and Natural Guardian R.Geetha Rani, D/o. B.Prathap, No.2, Gangaiamman Koil Street, Rehoboth Avenue, Sirunium, Sholavaram Post, Chennai - 600 067.

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

Prayer:To set aside the order in M.C.No.84/2024 dated 12.03.2026 passed by the learned II Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order in M.C.No.84/2024 dated 12.03.2026 passed by the learned II Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai.

¶17

The facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner and the 1^st Respondent got married on 06.06.2016 and the 2^nd Respondent is the minor child, born to

¶18

Page1 of 5

¶19

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

¶20

CRL RC No. 1222 of 2026

¶21

them. The Petitioner had obtained a decree of divorce in OP.No.3041 of 2022. The 1^st Redpondent had filed MC.No.84 of 2024, seeking maintenance before the Trial Court. By the impunged order of the Trial Court, a sum of Rs.20,000/- p.m. was ordered to be paid to the Respondents as maintenance. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner, seeking the relief, as stated above.

¶22

This Court heard Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner.

¶23

The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that without considering the liabilities and the financial status of the Revision Petitioner and also the source of income available to the 1^st Respondent, the Trial Court had passed the impugned order, granting maintenance to the tune of Rs.20,000/- p.m. to the Respondents and that without proper application of mind, the impugned order had been passed in a mechanical manner and hence, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed, as prayed for.

¶24

This Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the entire materials placed on record.

¶25

The facts that the Revision Petitioner is the husband of the 1^st Respondent and they got a minor female child/2nd Respondent, have not been denied. The amount fixed towards maintenance by the Court Below is Rs.02,000/- for the Respondents, which, in the present days of rising prices and high cost of living, cannot be considered as excessive or disproportionate or unreasonable.

¶26

Page2 of 5

¶27

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

¶28

CRL RC No. 1222 of 2026

¶29

The said monetary relief granted to the Respondents, by the courts below is adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living, to which the aggrieved person is accustomed. The provisions of Section 125 of Cr.PC are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife/child and provide some succour to them, who are entitled to get the maintenance, which cannot be denied. Further, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned orders, granting such quantum of maintenance, warranting interference by this Court.

¶30

In such circumstances, to meet the ends of justice, the impugned orders does not require any interference by this Court, as this court does not find any illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned orders and this Criminal Revision Case lacks merits and hence, it is liable to be dismissed.

¶31