Madras High Court
G.Ramesh vs Elavarasi on 2 April, 2025
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.R.C.No.1347 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 02.04.2025
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.1347 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.11495 and 14341 of 2024
---
G.Ramesh, S/o Govindaraj .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. Elavarasi, D/o Venkatachalam
2. Minor Nisha, D/o Ramesh
(Minor respondent 2 is represented by
next friend/guardian, the 1st respondent)
.. Respondents
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397(1) read with Section 401
of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 08.03.2024 passed in M.C.No.50 of 2023 on
the file of the Family Court, Krishnagiri.
For petitioner : Mr.K.Gandhikumar
For respondents: Mr.M.Suresh
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the husband and the first respondent is the wife
and the second respondent is their daughter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 01:31:57 pm )
2. The first respondent, along with the minor daughter, filed a
maintenance case in M.C.No.50 of 2023 before the Family Court, Krishnagiri.
After enquiry, the Family Court ordered maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month to
the first respondent and Rs.6,000/- per month to the second respondent.
Aggrieved by the grant of said maintenance, the revision petitioner (husband)
has preferred this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the first
respondent/wife is not entitled to get maintenance, since she is leading an
adulterous life and she is disqualified from getting maintenance under Section
125(4) of Cr.P.C. The trial Court failed to consider the same.
4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner produced photographs to
show that the first respondent-wife is having illegal relationship with a person and
she filed a petition for divorce and the competent Court had dismissed
O.P.No.35 of 2023. Even though both the cases were heard together, separate
judgment was rendered in both these cases. The petitioner-husband has
challenged the rejection order passed by the Family Court.
5. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner/husband that since the first respondent/wife had left the matrimonial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 01:31:57 pm )
home voluntarily and also stated to be leading adulterous life, she is not entitled
for the maintenance. Unfortunately, the Family Court failed to consider the crux
of the petition and ordered maintenance, which warrants interference by this
Court.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents (wife and minor child)
submitted that the petitioner has not proved the adultery and though the wife had
filed the divorce petition in OP.No.35 of 2023, the same was dismissed by the
Family Court, against which, an appeal is stated to be pending before the
Division Bench of this Court. Unless the competent Court declares that the
revision petitioner/husband is entitled for divorce on the ground of adultery, there
is no disqualification for getting maintenance. In this case, the revision petitioner
failed to prove the allegation of adultery, which is the subject matter of appeal
which is stated to be pending before the Division Bench of this Court. As on
date, the revision petitioner/husband has not established the disqualification of
the first respondent/wife from getting maintenance from the revision
petitioner/husband. The Family Court rightly considered the entire materials on
record and also partly allowed M.C.No.50 of 2023 ordering maintenance.
7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 01:31:57 pm )
8. The marital status of the parties is not disputed. The paternity of the
child is also not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that both are living separately.
The only dispute is that, according to the first respondent/wife, she is not having
any means to maintain herself, and that the revision petitioner is still in service
and working in the Defence Department and getting Rs.70,000/- per month as
salary and he is a man of means. The revision petitioner/husband has not
established that the first respondent/wife is having independent source of income
to maintain herself and also the minor child.
9. In the above facts and circumstances, considering the economical
status of the revision petitioner/husband and that the Court also had directed
payment of maintenance amount, though the revision petitioner alleged adultery
on the wife, however, he had made an attempt before the Family Court by filing
petition for divorce in O.P.No.35 of 2023 and after full-fledged trial, the said
petition for divorce, was dismissed, however, the same is under challenge before
the Division Bench in appeal (CMA), in which, no conclusion has yet been
arrived at. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner/husband, as on date, there is no decree from the competent Civil Court
and the respondents are disqualified from gettinig maintenance.
10. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 01:31:57 pm )
the relationship between the parties being also not in dispute and since the first
respondent/wife is able to prove that she is not having means to maintain herself
and she had also proved that the revision petitioner is having monthly income
from his sources of income from salary and the revision petitioner/husband is
liable and duty bound to maintain the respondents herein (wife and minor child).
The revision petitioner/husband has not challenged the order granting
maintenance by the Family Court, and he is only challenging the maintenance
amount granted to the respondents (wife and minor child) on the ground of
disqualification, namely adultery. As stated above, so far, no competent Civil
Court has declared and granted decree of divorce on the ground of adultery.
11. Further, the scope and object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is very limited,
which is a summary procedure and when once the wife has established that she
has no means to maintain herself and the minor child, this Court is of the view
that the first respondent/wife, with the second respondent/minor child, is entitled
for maintenance.
12. There being no merits in this revision petition, the same is accordingly
dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions are closed. However, the revision
petitoner/husband is at liberty to file appropriate application and seek necessary
relief, in case he succeeds in the pending appeal before the Division Bench of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 01:31:57 pm )
this Court as against the order of dismissal of pettion for divorce by the Court
below.
02.04.2025
cs
To
1. Judge, Family Court, Krishnagiri.
2. The Section Officer, Criminal Section - Records Wing, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 01:31:57 pm )
P.VELMURUGAN, J
cs
02.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 01:31:57 pm )
