Madras High Court
Balavenkatesh vs Minor.Aswanth on 1 April, 2025
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.134 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.134 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.1420 of 2025
Balavenkatesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Minor.Aswanth
2.Minor.Akshaya Shri
3.Dhakshayani ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS,
to call for the records pertaining to the order of the Family Court, Karur, dated
26.02.2024 made in M.C.No.49 of 2023 and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Deepan Chakravarthi
For Respondents : Mr.V.G.Chezhiyan
ORDER
The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in M.C.No.49
of 2023, on the file of the Family Court, Karur, dated 26.02.2024, granting
maintenance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:43 pm )
2. The third respondent/third petitioner for herself and on behalf of her
minor children has filed a complaint under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking
maintenance against the petitioner/respondent. Admittedly, the marriage
between the petitioner and the third respondent was solemnized on 02.03.2008
at Vasavi Marriage Hall at Musiri and due to their wedlock, they were blessed
with two children. The petitioner has filed a counter statement raising
objections.
3. During trial, the third respondent has examined herself as P.W.1 and
exhibited 6 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. The petitioner has examined himself
as R.W.1 and examined his close friend namely Sridhar as R.W.2 and adduced
no documentary evidence.
4. The learned Judge of Family Court, upon considering the evidence
both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, has
partly allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to pay monthly
maintenance at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the first
respondent and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:43 pm )
respondent and Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand only) to the third
respondent, totally Rs.15,000/- from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the said
impugned order, the husband has now come forward with the present revision.
5. It is evident from the records that at the time of admitting the revision,
this Court in Crl.MP(MD)No.2567 of 2020, dated 31.01.2025, while granting
interim stay, directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the arrears of
maintenance amount as well as the monthly maintenance and adjourned the
matter on 26.02.2025 for reporting compliance. Subsequently, at the request
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case was adjourned to
10.03.2025 for filing extension petition.
6.When the matter was taken up for hearing on 10.03.2025, the learned
counsel for the petitioner would submit that they have not filed any application
for extension of time and that they have not complied with the order of this
Court and hence, the case was adjourned to 25.03.2025 and that on 25.03.2025
at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case was adjourned
to 01.04.2025 for reporting compliance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:43 pm )
7. When the matter is taken up for hearing (ie.,01.04.2025), the learned
counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not complied
with the directions of this Court.
8. In similar matter, this Court in Permalsamy Vs. Krishnaveni and other
(Crl.R.C.(MD)No.307 of 2020 dated 03.04.2023) had dealt with the above
aspects and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:-
“14. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the order of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Tomar and others Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1539, wherein, the order of the High Court setting
aside the judgment of the Family Court was challenged and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, while setting aside the order the High
Court, has passed an order directing the second respondent
husband to comply with the interim order already passed by the
Family Court on or before 31.12.2022 to pay the entire arrears
of maintenance payable to the appellants and on compliance of
the above condition, the impugned order of the High Court was
ordered to be set aside and the Criminal Revision was ordered
to be restored, but on the other hand, in the event that the
second respondent husband fails to comply with the above
direction for the payment of arrears of maintenance by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:43 pm )
31.12.2022, the Criminal Revision instituted by the second
respondent shall stand dismissed.
15. As rightly contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents, considering the above, it is
clearly evident that the Court can very well pass conditional
order for the payment of maintenance arrears.
16. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs.
Neha and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, while giving
guidelines for the fixation of maintenance amounts, has
specifically held that striking off the defence of the respondent is
an order which ought to be passed in the last resort, if the
Courts find default to be wilful and contumacious, particularly
to a dependant unemployed wife, and minor children.
17. It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has pointed out that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to
provide financial support to his wife and to the minor children.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the position of
law that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and
is specially enacted to protect women and children. In
Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai reported in (2008) 2 SCC 316, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that object of
the maintenance is to prevent vagrancy and destitution of the
deserted wife by providing her food, clothing and shelter
through a speedy remedy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:43 pm )
19. It is pertinent to note that right to get maintenance is
not only a constitutional rights, but can be considered as an
element of universal human rights. The very purpose of
ordering maintenance is to prevent vagrancy as a result of
strained relationships and to guarantee that the poor litigating
spouse is not crippled as a result of a lack of funds to defend or
prosecute the case.”
9. Considering the above, this Court is of the clear view that the
petitioner is not entitled to proceed further. Hence, this Court concludes that the
revision is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. In the result, this Criminal Revision case is dismissed. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
01.04.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
das
To
1.The Judge, Family Court, Karur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:43 pm )
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
das
Order made in
Dated: 01.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:43 pm )
