Madras High Court
V.Dominic Julian vs S.Alphina Vinothini on 1 April, 2025
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.79 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.79 of 2025
V.Dominic Julian ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.S.Alphina Vinothini
2.Minor Yuvan Res Riyan
(represented by mother and natural
guardian S.Alphina Vinothini) ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the
learned Judge of the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli in M.C.No.132 of
2019 dated 04.10.2024 to set aside the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : M/s.A.Zubaitha Banu
For Respondents : M/s.T.Banumathy
ORDER
This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 01:14:05 pm )
M.C.No.132 of 2019 dated 04.10.2024 on the file of the Family Court,
Tiruchirappalli, directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of
Rs.15,000/- to the respondents from the date of petition.
2. Admittedly, the marriage between the petitioner and the first
respondent was solemnized on 07.09.2014 and due to their wedlock, they
were blessed with a son/second respondent herein. Subsequently, the
petitioner had harassed the first respondent, due to which, they are living
separately.
3. The first respondent for herself and on behalf of her minor son
has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. The
learned Judge of Family Court, Tiruchirappalli, after conducting enquiry,
has passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay monthly
maintenance of Rs.8,000/- to the first respondent from the date of
petition and Rs.7,000/- to the second respondent from the date of petition
till he attains majority and also directed the petitioner to pay the arrears
of maintenance amount in the same quantum from the date of filing of
the petition within a period of three months from the date of that order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 01:14:05 pm )
Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the present revision came to be
filed.
4. It is evident from the records that this Court vide order dated
14.02.2025 directed the petitioner to deposit 75% of pending arrears of
maintenance amount, on or before 14.03.2025 before the trial Court and
posted the matter on 17.03.2025 for reporting compliance and when the
matter was taken up on 17.03.2025, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not complied with the order of
this Court nor filed any petition seeking extension and hence, this Court
adjourned the matter on 01.04.2025 for orders. When the matter is taken
up today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner has not complied with the order of this Court.
5. It is pertinent to note that maintenance case came to be filed in
2019 and the impugned order came to be passed on 04.10.2024.
6. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 01:14:05 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 01:14:05 pm )
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.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 01:14:05 pm )
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.”
7. The legal position above referred is squarely applicable to the
case on hand. In the case on hand also, the petitioner, without complying
with any order of this Court, has absolutely no right or locus standi to
advance the arguments or to proceed with the main revision case.
8. As already pointed out, though this Court has directed the
petitioner to deposit the 75% of the arrears amount on 14.03.2025, the
petitioner has not even attempted to comply with the said order and more
importantly, he has not even paid single paisa to the respondents.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 01:14:05 pm )
10. In the result, this Criminal Revision case stands dismissed. No
costs.
01.04.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
csm
To
1.The Judge,
Family Court,
Tiruchirappalli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 01:14:05 pm )
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
Order made in
Dated: 01.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 01:14:05 pm )
