K.Sivakumar Vs B.Yamuna Bai — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

K.Sivakumar Vs B.Yamuna Bai — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Revision Petition dismissed; the order dated 19.01.2024 in M.C.No.133 of 2021 (direction to pay Rs.10,000/- maintenance) is confirmed; first respondent left at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in the manner known to law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 19.01.2024 passed in M.C.No.133 of 2021 by the II Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai, directing the petitioner to pay maintenance, should be called for and set aside as prayed by the petitioner. +1 more

Court's answer

It is made clear that the petitioner has not complied with the conditional order passed by this Court (order dated 06.10.2025 requiring deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- towards arrears and payment of Rs.8,000/- monthly interim maintenance), inspite of sufficient time granted to him, including the extension to 28.11.2025.

Ratio / Principle

The order passed in M.C.No.133 of 2021 on the file of the II Additional Principal Family Court at Chennai dated 19.01.2024 is confirmed, and the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

Key takeaways

The first respondent is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in the manner known to law.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, T.V. Thamilselvi, J. — Crl.R.C.No.1923 of 2025, decided 28.11.2025. The petitioner-husband sought revision to set aside the order dated 19.01.2024 in M.C.No.133 of 2021 (II Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai), which directed him to pay Rs.10,000/- as maintenance to the respondent-wife following his pending divorce petition (O.P.No.988/2020). By a conditional order dated 06.10.2025 this Court had required him to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- towards arrears and to pay Rs.8,000/- monthly interim maintenance by the 10th of each English calendar month; after extensions, including to 28.11.2025, the petitioner neither appeared nor complied. Holding that he had failed to comply with the conditional order despite sufficient time, the Court confirmed the Family Court order and dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition, leaving the first respondent at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in the manner known to law. No statute or precedent was cited in the judgment.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 19.01.2024 in M.C.No.133 of 2021 issuing a direction to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as maintenance to the first respondent.¶13
II Additional Principal Family Court at Chennai · 19.01.2024
Prior proceeding
Marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 20.08.2015.¶10
Prior proceeding
One female child was born out of the wedlock (sentence completes at the opening of the next paragraph).¶10
Prior proceeding
After the child's birth the petitioner's attitude changed; he allegedly behaved abnormally and tortured the first respondent/wife.¶11
Prior proceeding
The petitioner allegedly behaved as 'psycho' and tortured the first respondent/wife.¶13
Prior proceeding
The petitioner filed a divorce petition, O.P.No.988/2020, which remains pending.¶13
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to the divorce petition, the first respondent/wife filed a petition for interim maintenance in M.C.No.133 of 2021, which was ordered on 19.01.2024.¶13
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved by the maintenance order, the petitioner filed the present Criminal Revision Petition seeking to set aside the order dated 19.01.2024 in M.C.No.133 of 2021.¶13
Prior proceeding
By conditional order dated 06.10.2025 this Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- towards arrears of maintenance (completion in the following paragraph).¶17
Prior proceeding
The same order dated 06.10.2025 directed payment of Rs.8,000/- as monthly interim maintenance on or before the 10th of every English calendar month, and the matter was adjourned to 18.11.2025 (original spellings 'Calender' and 'mater' preserved).¶20
Prior proceeding
When the matter came up on 18.11.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to comply with the order dated 06.10.2025.¶20
Prior proceeding
The Court granted further time and directed the petitioner to pay the said amounts on or before 28.11.2025, adjourning the matter to that date.¶20
Prior proceeding
Even on the final adjourned date (28.11.2025) the petitioner neither appeared nor paid the said amount.¶20