R.Muthukumarasamy Vs C. Vennila

Minor.Santhosh, S/o.R.Muthukumarasamy, Vinayagar Koil Street, Sellancherry Village and Post, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District. Represented by 1st respondent Mother Vennila, W/o.R.Muthukumarasamy, Vinayagar Koil Street, Sellancherry Village and Post, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

Prayer: To allow this Criminal Revision petition and set aside the order dated 25.11.2025 passed in M.C.No. 29/2021 on the file of the Family Court, Cuddalore, and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.D.Baskar

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order dated 25.11.2025

¶18

passed in M.C.No. 29/2021 on the file of the Family Court, Cuddalore.

¶19

The facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner and the 1^st Respondent got married on 20.06.2011 and the 2^nd Respondent is the minor male child,

¶20

Page1 of 6

¶21

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

¶22

CRL RC No. 250 of 2026

¶23

born to them. Due to matrimonial dispute, the 1^st Redpondent had left the matrimonial home and filed MC.No.29 of 2021, seeking maintenance before the Trial Court. By the impunged order of the Trial Court, a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m. was ordered to be paid to the Respondents (Rs.5000/= to the 1^st Respondent and Rs.10,000/- to the child/2^nd Respondent) as maintenance. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner, seeking the relief, as stated above.

¶24

This Court heard Mr.D.Baskar, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner.

¶25

The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the court below failed to appreciate the fact that the 1^st 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, the Trial Court had passed the impugned order, granting maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000/- p.m. to the 1^st Respondent (Rs.5,000/-) and the child/2nd Respondent (Rs.10,000/-) 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.

¶26

This Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner on either side and also perused the entire materials placed on record.

¶27

The facts that the Revision Petitioner is the husband of the 1^st Respondent and

¶28

Page2 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

CRL RC No. 250 of 2026

¶31

they got a minor child/2nd Respondent, have not been denied. The amount fixed towards interim maintenance by the Court Below is Rs.15,000/- for the

¶32

1^st Respondent and the child/2nd 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 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 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.

¶33

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.

¶34

In the result, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed, as devoid of merits. There is no order as to costs.

¶35

12-06-2026

¶36

__________ Page3 of 6

¶37

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

¶38

CRL RC No. 250 of 2026

¶39

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

¶40

SRCM

¶41

__________ Page4 of 6

¶42

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

¶43

CRL RC No. 250 of 2026

¶44

SHAMIM AHMED, J.

¶45

SRCM

¶46

CRL RC No. 250 of 2026

¶47

12-06-2026

¶48

__________ Page5 of 6

¶49

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

¶50

CRL RC No. 250 of 2026

¶51

To

¶52

C. Vennila

¶53

W/o.R.Muthukumarasamy, Vinayagar Koil Street, Sellancherry Village and Post, Cuddalore Taluk,

¶54

Cuddalore District.

¶55

Minor.Santhosh S/o.R.Muthukumarasamy, Vinayagar Koil Street, Sellancherry Village and Post, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District. Represented by 1st respondent Mother Vennila, W/o.R.Muthukumarasamy, Vinayagar Koil Street, Sellancherry Village and Post, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶56

The Family Court, Cuddalore,

¶57

__________ Page6 of 6

¶58

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

R.Muthukumarasamy v. C. Vennila

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Muthukumarasamy v. C. Vennila

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Elanchezhiyan Vs State of tamilnadu Rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police

R. Subhakar Vs Minor S.Dhanvi

Krishnaraj Vs Kalaivani

D.Prewin Kumar Vs S.Keerthana

S.Agil Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police

Siva Vs The State of Rep. by, Sub-Inspector of Police