Madras High Court
P.Saravana Murugan vs Nagalakshmi on 2 April, 2025
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.168 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.168 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1658 of 2025
P.Saravana Murugan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Nagalakshmi
2.Minor.S Nithila
(Minor represented by her mother and natural
guardian, the 1st respondent herein) ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for records relating to the order passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti in Crl.M.P.No.3484 of 2023 in M.C.No.3
of 2021 dated 06.01.2024 and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer
For Respondents : Mr.K.P.Kamalakannan
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:51:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.168 of 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in
Crl.M.P.No.3484 of 2023 in M.C.No.3 of 2021 dated 06.01.2024 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, allowing the petition filed under
Section 128 Cr.P.C.
2. Admittedly, the marriage between the petitioner and the first
respondent was solemnized on 08.06.2006 and due to their wedlock, they
were blessed with a daughter/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
daughter has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming
maintenance. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, after conducting
enquiry, has passed an order directing the petitioner to pay monthly
maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to the first respondent and Rs.9,000/- to the
second respondent and also directed the petitioner to pay the arrear
amount of maintenance in the same quantum from the date of filing of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:51:49 pm )
the petition i.e., Rs.2,70,000/- within a period of six months from the
date of that order. Since the petitioner has not paid any amount, the
respondents have filed the above petition under Section 128 Cr.P.C. in
Crl.M.P.No.3484 of 2023 and the learned Judicial Magistrate, after
enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 06.01.2024 directing the
petitioner to pay sum of Rs.3,79,000/- within a period of four months,
failing which, warrant will be issued. Aggrieved by the said impugned
order, the present revision came to be filed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit
that since the petitioner has not complied with the directions of the
learned Judicial Magistrate dated 06.01.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.3484 of
2023, warrant has already been issued.
5. It is evident from the records that this Court vide order dated
07.02.2025, while granting interim stay, directed the petitioner to deposit
75% of arrears of maintenance amount on or before 06.03.2025 and that
subsequently the petitioner has filed a petition seeking extension of time
to deposit the amount and this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025 has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:51:49 pm )
granted time till 01.04.2025 and posted the matter on 02.04.2025 for
reporting compliance.
6. When the matter is taken up for hearing today (02.04.2025), the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner has not complied with the direction of this Court, but sought
for further time.
7. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:51:49 pm )
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:51:49 pm )
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.
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.”
8. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:51:49 pm )
9. As already pointed out, though this Court has directed the
petitioner to deposit the 75% of the arrears amount on 07.02.2025, 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.
10. 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.
11. In the result, this Criminal Revision case stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
02.04.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
csm
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Vadipatti.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:51:49 pm )
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
Order made in
and
Dated: 02.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:51:49 pm )
