Dismissed¶¶41

R. Subhakar v. Minor S.Dhanvi

Madras HC11 Jun 2026CRL RC/585/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL RC No. 585 of 2026; Madras High Court; Shamim Ahmed, J.; maintenance; Section 125 Cr.PC; destitute wife; vagrancy; Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani; M.C.No.9 of 2024; Rs.20,000/- p.m.; Rs.2,60,000/- arrears; rising prices and high cost of living; standard of living; no illegality or impropriety; Criminal Revision dismissed; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

None to the Revision Petitioner; the Criminal Revision Case was dismissed as devoid of merits, leaving the Trial Court's maintenance order undisturbed, with no order as to costs. ¶¶41

R. Subhakar Vs Minor S.Dhanvi — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the Revision Petitioner; the Criminal Revision Case was dismissed as devoid of merits, leaving the Trial Court's maintenance order undisturbed, with no order as to costs.

¶¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned maintenance order of the Trial Court (Rs.20,000/- p.m. and Rs.2,60,000/- arrears) suffered from illegality, impropriety or incorrectness warranting interference by this Court in revision. +1 more

¶¶24

Court's answer

The provisions of Section 125 Cr.PC were enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife and to provide succour to those entitled to maintenance, which cannot be denied.

¶¶33

Ratio / Principle

The maintenance of Rs.20,000/- fixed by the Court Below for the 2nd Respondent and the minor daughter, in the present days of rising prices and high cost of living, cannot be considered excessive, disproportionate or unreasonable.

¶¶33

Key takeaways

The monetary relief granted by the courts below is adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed.ratio¶¶33
This Court finds no illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned orders; they do not require interference and the Criminal Revision Case, lacking merits, is liable to be dismissed.ratio¶¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Shamim Ahmed, J.), by order dated 11-06-2026 in CRL RC No. 585 of 2026, dismissed the husband's revision against the order dated 19.11.2025 in M.C.No.9 of 2024 of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani, which directed payment of Rs.20,000/- p.m. as maintenance (Rs.10,000/- each to the wife and the minor daughter) together with Rs.2,60,000/- towards arrears. Holding that, in the present days of rising prices and high cost of living, the quantum was neither excessive nor disproportionate nor unreasonable — being adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed — and invoking Section 125 Cr.PC as enacted to stop the vagrancy of destitute wives, the Court found no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness warranting interference and dismissed the revision, with no order as to costs.

¶1

CRL RC No. 585 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED

¶6

CRL RC No. 585 of 2026

¶7

R. Subhakar, S/o. Rathinakaran, No.184, Jawaharlal Nehru Street, Anvarthikanpet Village, Arakkonam Taluk, Ranipet District.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

Minor S.Dhanvi, D/o. Subhakar, Rep.by by next friend / guardian cum her other V.Jeevitha (The 2nd Petitioner herein) residing at No.2, Sekarvarma Nagar, Tiruttani Town and Taluk, Tiruvallur District - 631 209.

¶11

V.Jeevitha, W/o. Subhakar, residing at No.2, Sekarvarma Nagar, Tiruttani Town and Taluk, Tiruvallur District - 631 209.

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

Prayer: To call for the entire records relating to the order passed in M.C.No.9 of 2024 dated 19.11.2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondent(s): Mr.K.T.S.Sivakumar for Mr.R.Ammu

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Criminal Revision Case is filed to call for the records relating to the

¶17

order, dated 19.11.2025, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani.

¶18

The facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner and the 2^nd Respondent

¶19

got married on 06.12.2021 and the 1st Respondent is the minor female child,

¶20

Page1 of 5

¶21

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

¶22

CRL RC No. 585 of 2026

¶23

born to them. Alleging that the Revision Petitioner is not taking of the Respondents, the Redpondents had filed MC.No.9 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 (Rs.10000/= to the 2^nd Respondent and Rs.10,000/- to the female child/1st Respondent) as maintenance and a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- was also ordered to be paid to the Respondents towards arrears. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner, seeking the relief, as stated above.

¶24

This Court heard Mr.C.Prakasam, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.K.T.S.Sivakumar for Ms.R.Ammu, the learned counsel for the Respondents.

¶25

The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the court below failed to appreciate the fact that the 2^nd Respondent voluntarily refused to live with the Petitioner, 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.20,000/- p.m. to the 2^nd Respondent and the female child/1st Respondent 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

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that the

¶27

Page2 of 5

¶28

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

¶29

CRL RC No. 585 of 2026

¶30

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

¶31

to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court. The amount of Rs.20,000/- as maintenance for the 2^nd Respondent and her female child/1st Respondent, is not excessive. There is no illegality, impropriety, or perversity in the impugned order, nor does it reflect any abuse of the process of the Court.

¶32

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

¶33

The facts that the Revision Petitioner is the husband of the 2^nd Respondent and they got a minor female child/1st Respondent, have not been denied. The amount fixed towards maintenance by the Court Below is Rs.20,000/- for the 2^nd Respondent and the female child/1st 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

¶34

Page3 of 5

¶35

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

¶36

CRL RC No. 585 of 2026

¶37

illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned orders, granting

¶38

such quantum of maintenance, warranting interference by this Court.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42