Dismissed¶38

E.Gowtham v. v.B.Srimathi

Maintenance – Minor child

Madras HC15 Jun 2026CRL RC/926/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (Shamim Ahmed, J., 15-06-2026) dismissed CRL RC No. 926 of 2026 filed by the husband seeking to reduce monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- granted to his minor daughter by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai in M.C.No.397 of 2021 (order dated 06.09.2025). Keywords: maintenance; minor child; Section 125 Cr.PC; reduction of quantum; financial status and liabilities; rising prices and cost of living; adequacy of maintenance; no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness; criminal revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Rs.10,000/- maintenance fixed by the court below for the child/2nd respondent, in the present days of rising prices and high cost of living, cannot be considered excessive, disproportionate or unreasonable. ¶33

E.Gowtham Vs v.B.Srimathi — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the quantum of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- awarded to the 2nd respondent/minor child should be reduced, considering the petitioner's current financial status.

¶13

Court's answer

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Section 125 Cr.PC was enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife/child and provide succour to those entitled to maintenance, which cannot be denied; the monetary relief granted was adequate, fair, reasonable and consistent with the accustomed standard of living.

¶33

Key takeaways

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner was unable to point out any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order granting the quantum of maintenance, so no interference was warranted.ratio¶33
The impugned order does not require interference; the Criminal Revision Case lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maintenance — Minor child — Criminal Revision against order dated 06.09.2025 in M.C.No.397 of 2021 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai awarding Rs.10,000/- p.m. to the 2nd respondent/minor child — Reduction sought on the ground of the revision petitioner's financial status and liabilities — HELD: the amount, in the present days of rising prices and high cost of living, is not 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; Section 125 Cr.PC is enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife/child and provide succour, and such maintenance cannot be denied; no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order was pointed out warranting interference — Criminal Revision Case dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

CRL RC No. 926 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED

¶6

CRL RC No. 926 of 2026 Crl.MP.No.7290 of 2026

¶7

E.Gowtham, S/o.Mr.Egarajan, 32, Gandhiji Street, Alagappan Nagar, Madurai - 625 003.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

V.B.Srimathi, Mother of Swarna Iniyal, 32/45 Arunasalm Street, Chepauk, Triplicane, Chennai-600 014.

¶11

Minor Swarna Iniyal, Represented by Mother V.B.Srimathi, 32/45 Arunasalm Street, Chepauk, Triplicane, Chennai - 600 014.

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

Prayer: To call for the records and set-aside the M.C.No.397 of 2021 order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Chennai and to reduce the quantum of Maintenance of Rs.10,000/- awarded to the 2nd respondent/Minor Child, considering the petitioner current financial status.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Ms.R.A.Shinusha For Respondent(s): Mr.V.T.Narendhiran

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside, order dated 06.09.2025,

¶17

made in MC.No.397 of 2021, by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Chennai and to reduce the quantum of Maintenance of Rs.10,000/- awarded

¶18

to the 2nd respondent/Minor Child.

¶19

Page1 of 5

¶20

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

¶21

CRL RC No. 926 of 2026

¶22

The facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner and the 1^st Respondent got married on 03.09.2017 and the 2^nd Respondent is the minor child, born to them on 06.07.2018. It is alleged that the Respondents were sent out of the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the 1^st Redpondent had filed MC.No.397 of 2021, seeking maintenance before the Trial Court. By the impunged order of the Trial Court, a sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m. was ordered to be paid 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.

¶23

This Court heard Ms.R.A.Shinusha, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.V.T.Narendhiran, the learned counsel for the Respondents.

¶24

The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the court

¶25

below failed to appreciate the fact that the Petitioner had not earned any income 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.10,000/- p.m. to the child/2nd 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 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

¶27

Page2 of 5

¶28

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

¶29

CRL RC No. 926 of 2026

¶30

to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court. The amount of Rs.10,000/- as maintenance for the child/2nd Respondent, is not excessive. There is no illegality, impropriety, or

¶31

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 1^st Respondent and they got a minor female child/2nd Respondent, have not been denied. The amount fixed towards maintenance by the Court Below is Rs.10,000/- for 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/child 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.

¶34

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

¶35

Page3 of 5

¶36

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

¶37

CRL RC No. 926 of 2026

¶38

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.

¶39