Madras High Court
Sathish Kumar vs Bhavatharani on 4 September, 2025
CRL.R.C.(MD)No.1221 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL.R.C.(MD)No.1221 of 2025
and
CRL.M.P.(MD)No.11804 of 2025
Sathish Kumar
S/o.Krishnamoorthi,
No.460-33, Muthuramalinga Thevar Street,
Cumbum, Uthamapalayam Taluk,
Theni District. ... Petitioner
vs.
1.Bhavatharani
W/o.Sathish Kumar,
No.16, Kurinchi Nagar,
St.Charles Convent Road,
Thanakankulam, Madurai – 625 006.
2.Lakshitha (Minor)
3.Veda Vidula (Minor) ... Respondents
(Respondents 2 and 3 are represented through the first respondent as
Mother/Natural Guardian)
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442
of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records of the impugned order, dated
11.08.2025 passed in M.C.No.13 of 2023 on the file of the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Madurai and to set aside the same.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 02:23:49 pm )
CRL.R.C.(MD)No.1221 of 2025
For Petitioner :Mr.C.Senthil Murugan
*****
ORDER
Heard Mr.C.Senthil Murugan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
2.This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the impugned judgement and order, dated 11.08.2025 passed in
M.C.No.13 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Madurai, by which the first respondent/wife was
awarded Rs.10,000/-per month, and the respondents 2 and 3 were
awarded Rs.10,000/- each per month as maintenance.
3.Mr.C.Senthil Murugan, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner and the first respondent are husband
and wife. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent
was solemnized on 10.06.2006. Due to difference of opinion, they are
living separately and the first respondent has filed a petition in M.C.No.
13 of 2023 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court, Madurai, seeking maintenance and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 02:23:49 pm )
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Madurai, vide judgment and
order, dated 11.08.2025, awarded Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance
to the first respondent and Rs.10,000/- per month each to the respondents
2 and 3, in total Rs.30,000/- per month.
4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner is receiving only a meager salary and is, therefore, unable to
pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month towards maintenance to the
respondents. He further submits that the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Madurai, failed to consider that the first
respondent/wife is residing separately from the petitioner without any
just or reasonable cause, and as such, she is not entitled to claim
maintenance from the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner is
willing to resume cohabitation. However, the the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court, Madurai, after recording the statements of the
contesting parties, without properly appreciating the facts and evidence
available on record, allowed the application filed by the respondents and
awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 02:23:49 pm )
respondent and Rs.10,000/- per month each to the respondents 2 and 3, in
total Rs.30,000/- per month.
5. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the
parties and also perused the record.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point
out any such illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned
order which may persuade this Court to interfere in the same. The
amount fixed for maintenance was Rs.10,000/- per month for each of the
respondents, which, in the present days of rising prices and high cost of
living, cannot be considered excessive or disproportionate. The
provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C are beneficial provisions, which are
enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife and provide some
succour to them, who are entitled to get the maintenance which cannot be
denied. The fact that the Petitioner is the husband of the first respondent,
has not been denied.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 02:23:49 pm )
7. In such circumstances to meet the ends of justice, the impugned
order does not require any interference. There is no illegality, impropriety
and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no
abuse of Court's process.
8. In view of the above, the Criminal Revision Petition lacks merit
and stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
stands closed.
Index :Yes / No 04.09.2025
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
cmr
To
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 02:23:49 pm )
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
cmr
04.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 02:23:49 pm )
