Dismissed¶37

P.Dhanajayan v. R.Nithya

Madras HC10 Jul 2026CRL RC/1402/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court criminal revision dismissed 10-07-2026 (Shamim Ahmed J); husband P.Dhanajayan challenged Rs.10,000 p.m. interim maintenance order favouring wife R.Nithya (MC.No.16 of 2022 / Crl.MP.No.3387 of 2022, Judicial Magistrate Court at Ambattur); Section 144 BNSS; destitute wife vagrancy; rising prices and high cost of living; standard of living of aggrieved person; no illegality warranting interference.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; the Trial Court's direction to pay Rs.10,000/- p.m. interim maintenance to the respondent stands undisturbed; no order as to costs. ¶37

P.Dhanajayan Vs R.Nithya — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner; the Trial Court's direction to pay Rs.10,000/- p.m. interim maintenance to the respondent stands undisturbed; no order as to costs.

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the Criminal Revision Case seeking setting aside of the Trial Court's order granting the respondent interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- p.m. - assailed as mechanical and passed without regard to the petitioner's liabilities, financial status and the respondent's own sources of income - should be allowed.

¶23

Court's answer

The amount of Rs.10,000/- fixed towards interim maintenance by the Court Below cannot be considered as excessive or disproportionate or unreasonable in the present days of rising prices and high cost of living.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The monetary relief granted to the respondent is adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed.

¶30

Key takeaways

Section 144 of BNSS was enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife and to provide succour to those entitled to maintenance, which cannot be denied.ratio¶30
The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (CRL RC No. 1402 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Madras, Shamim Ahmed, J.) by the husband against the Judicial Magistrate Court at Ambattur's order in Crl.MP.No.3387 of 2022 (in MC.No.16 of 2022) awarding his wife interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month - DISMISSED. Held: in the present days of rising prices and high cost of living the quantum is neither excessive nor disproportionate nor unreasonable, being adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved wife is accustomed; Section 144 of BNSS was enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife and to secure the maintenance due to her, which cannot be denied; counsel for the revision petitioner could point out no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned orders warranting interference. No order as to costs.

¶1

CRL RC No. 1402 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED CRL RC No. 1402 of 2026 in Crl.MP.No.11819 of 2026

¶6

P.Dhanajayan S/o.Purusothaman, No. 4/607, 5th Main Road, Muthamizh Nagar, Chennai 600 118.

¶7

..Petitioner(s)

¶8

¶9

R.Nithya W/o.P.Dhanajayan, No. 39, D.T.P.Colony, Korattur, Chennai 600 053.

¶10

..Respondent(s)

¶11

Prayer: To set aside the order dated 24.10.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3387 of 2022 in MC.No.16 of 2022 on the file of the Honourable Judicial Magistrate Court at Ambattur and allow the Criminal Revision petition.

¶12

For Petitioner(s): Mr. S.K.Chandrakumar

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order dated 24.10.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3387 of 2022 in MC.No.16 of 2022 on the file

¶15

of the Honourable Judicial Magistrate Court at Ambattur.

¶16

The facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner and^…..

¶17

Page1 of 5

¶18

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

¶19

CRL RC No. 1402 of 2026

¶20

Respondent got married on 04.05.2018. Due to misunderstanding between the couple, they were living separately. Therefore, the Respondent had filed MC.No.16 of 2022, seeking maintenance before the Trial Court. During pendency of the maintenance case, the petitioner has filed a miscellaneous petition in Crl.MP.No.3387 of 2022. The learned Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 24.10.2025, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m. to the Respondents as interim maintenance. Challenging the said order, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner, seeking the relief, as stated above.

¶21

This Court heard Mr,S.K.Chandrakumar, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner. Since no adverse order is passed against the respondent, notice to her is dispensed with.

¶22

The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that

¶23

the court below failed to appreciate the fact that the Respondent voluntarily refused to live with him, without any reasonable cause and that without considering the liabilities and the financial status of the Revision Petitioner and also the source of income available to the Respondent, the Trial Court had passed the impugned order, granting maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/p.m. to the Respondent and that without proper application of mind, the impugned order had been passed in a mechanical manner and hence, this

¶24

Page2 of 5

¶25

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

¶26

CRL RC No. 1402 of 2026

¶27

Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed, as prayed for.

¶28

This Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel on

¶29

either side and also perused the entire materials placed on record.

¶30

The Revision Petitioner is the husband of the Respondent, the said fact has not been denied. The amount fixed towards interim maintenance by the Court Below is Rs.10,000/- for the Respondent, which, in the present days of rising prices and high cost of living, cannot be considered as excessive or disproportionate or unreasonable. The said monetary relief granted to the Respondent, 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 144 of BNSS are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife 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.

¶31

In such circumstances, to meet the ends of justice, the impugned

¶32

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

¶33

Page3 of 5

¶34

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

¶35

CRL RC No. 1402 of 2026

¶36

this Criminal Revision Case lacks merit and hence, it is liable to be dismissed.

¶37