Dismissed¶¶38

D.Prewin Kumar v. S.Keerthana

Madras HC12 Jun 2026CRL RC/268/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC, CRL RC No.268 of 2026, Shamim Ahmed J., 12-06-2026: husband's revision against Family Court Tiruppur order dt.22.09.2025 in M.C.No.106/2024 dismissed; interim maintenance Rs.17,500/- p.m. (wife Rs.7,500/-; two children Sathurvidha & Sathvick Rs.10,000/-) upheld as neither excessive nor disproportionate nor unreasonable amid rising prices and high cost of living; adequate, fair, reasonable, consistent with accustomed standard of living; Section 125 Cr.PC — succour to destitute wife, vagrancy; no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness; no interference; no costs.

What did the court decide?

None to the Revision Petitioner; the impugned interim maintenance order dated 22.09.2025 stands undisturbed; no order as to costs. ¶¶38

D.Prewin Kumar Vs S.Keerthana — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the Revision Petitioner; the impugned interim maintenance order dated 22.09.2025 stands undisturbed; no order as to costs.

¶¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order granting interim maintenance of Rs.17,500/- p.m. was passed mechanically, without assessing the Revision Petitioner's financial capacity and the Respondent's means and ability to maintain herself and her two children, and is therefore liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶¶25

Court's answer

The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner was not able to point out any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned orders granting such quantum of maintenance, warranting interference by this Court.

¶¶32

Ratio / Principle

The interim maintenance of Rs.17,500/- fixed by the Court Below for the Respondent and the two children cannot, in the present days of rising prices and high cost of living, be considered excessive, disproportionate or unreasonable; the monetary relief is adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed.

¶¶32

Key takeaways

The provisions of Section 125 of Cr.PC are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife and provide some succour to those who are entitled to get maintenance, which cannot be denied.ratio¶¶32
The impugned orders do not require any interference by this Court, as no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness is found in them; the Criminal Revision Case lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.ratio¶¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Shamim Ahmed, J.; decided 12-06-2026) dismissed the husband's Criminal Revision Case (CRL RC No. 268 of 2026) challenging the order dated 22.09.2025 of the Principal Family Court, Tiruppur in M.C.No.106 of 2024, which had granted interim maintenance of Rs.17,500/- p.m. — Rs.7,500/- to the wife and Rs.10,000/- to the two minor children, Sathurvidha and Sathvick. Holding that in the present days of rising prices and high cost of living the quantum cannot be considered excessive, disproportionate or unreasonable; that the monetary relief is adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed; that the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.PC are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife and provide succour to those entitled to maintenance, which cannot be denied; and that counsel for the Revision Petitioner could point out no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned orders warranting interference, the Court dismissed the revision as devoid of merits, with no order as to costs.

¶1

CRL RC No. 268 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED

¶6

CRL RC No. 268 of 2026

¶7

D.Prewin Kumar, S/o Duraisamy, D.No.14/38, Thottapaguthigal, Ikkaraipooluvampatti, Coimbatroe.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

S.Keerthana, D/o A.Selvaraj, D.No.91/24, Kattabomman Nagar, PNP Road, Tiruppur.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

Prayer:-To set aside the orders dated 22.09.2025 in M.C.No.106 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Tiruppur, and allow the above Criminal Revision Petition.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Mr.J.Maheswaran For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Muthu Kumar

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order, dated 22.09.2025,

¶16

passed in MC.No.106 pf 2024, by the Principal Family Court, Tiruppur.

¶17

The facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner/Husband and the

¶18

Respondent/Wife got married on 22.02.2015 and out of their wed lock, two children, Sathurvidha dnd Sathvick, were born on 28.12.2015 amd 11.07.2020, respectively. Due to matrimonial dispute, the Respondent left

¶19

the matrimonial home and had filed MC.No.106 of 2024, seeking

¶20

Page1 of 5

¶21

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

¶22

CRL RC No. 268 of 2026

¶23

maintenance. By the impunged order, a sum of Rs.17,500/- p.m. was ordered to be paid to the Respondent (Rs.7,500/-) and her two children, namely, Sathurvidha dnd Sathvick, (Rs.10,000/-) 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.J.Maheswaran, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.S.Muthu Kumar, the learned counsel for the Respondent.

¶25

The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the Respondent had left the matrimonial home on her own volition and that without assessing the financial capacity of the Revision Petition and the means and ability of the Respondent to maintain herself and her two children, the Trial Court had passed the impugned order, granting interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.17,500/- p.m. to the Respondent and her two children and that the impugned order had been passed in a mechanical manner hence, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed, as prayed for.

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the Trial Court had passed the impugned order, after duly considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the statements of both the Petitioner and the Respondent. It is contended that, in such circumstances, and in order to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court. The amount of Rs.17,500/- as interim maintenance

¶27

Page2 of 5

¶28

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

¶29

CRL RC No. 268 of 2026

¶30

for the Respondent and her two children is not too much. There is no illegality, impropriety, or perversity in the impugned order, nor does it reflect any abuse of the process of the Court.

¶31

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

¶32

The facts that the Revision Petitioner is the husband of the Respondent and they got two childen have not been denied. The amount fixed towards interim maintenance by the Court Below is Rs.17,500/- for the Respondent and the two Children, 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 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

¶34

Page3 of 5

¶35

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

¶36

CRL RC No. 268 of 2026

¶37

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

¶38