Madras High Court
B.Thangavel vs K.Shanthi on 9 September, 2025
Crl.R.C(MD)No.661 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL.R.C.(MD)No.661 of 2025
and
CRL MP(MD)No.7293 of 2025
B.Thangavel,
S/o.Posan,
Residing at No.394/36A1, Sundapanai Colony,
Veeranampalayam Post,
Paramathi Velur Taluk,
Namakkal District. ... Petitioner
vs.
K.Shanthi,
D/o.Krishnan,
Residing at No.107, Subramaniyapuram 1st Street,
Kathapparai, Near Vennaimalai,
Manmangalam Taluk,
Karur District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442
of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertains to the impugned order
passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Karur in M.C.No.78 of 2024,
dated 19.04.2025 and to set aside the same.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 03:05:43 pm )
Crl.R.C(MD)No.661 of 2025
For Petitioner :Mr.D.Venkatachalam
For Respondent :Mr.J.Sathiyaraj
*****
ORDER
Heard Mr.D.Venkatachalam, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr.J.Sathiyaraj, learned counsel for the Respondent.
2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the impugned judgement and order dated 19.04.2025 passed by
Family Court, Karur in M.C.No.78 of 2024 by which the Respondent
was awarded Rs.6,000/-per month, as maintenance allowance.
3. Mr.D.Venkatachalam, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner submits that the Petitioner and the Respondent are husband
and wife. The marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent was
solemnized on 26.02.2016. Due to difference of opinion, they are living
separately and the Respondent has filed a petition in M.C.No.78 of 2024
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the Family Court, Karur seeking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 03:05:43 pm )
maintenance and the Family Court vide order dated 19.04.2025 awarded
Rs.6,000/- as monthly maintenance to the Respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the
Petitioner, who is receiving only a meager salary, is therefore unable to
pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month towards maintenance to the
Respondent. He further submits that the Family Court failed to consider
that the Respondent/wife is working as a saleswoman and earning a
salary of Rs.9,500/- per month. Moreover, the Petitioner is a construction
worker with a meager income, which is insufficient to support his family
and maintain his elderly parents. Therefore, the Respondent is not
entitled to claim maintenance from the Petitioner. It is also submitted that
the Family Court, without properly appreciating the facts and evidence
on record, partly allowed the application filed by the Respondent and
awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month, as maintenance to the
Respondent.
5. When the matter was came up for hearing on 12.06.2025, the
co-ordinate bench of this Court passed the following order:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 03:05:43 pm )
“The petitioner is directed to pay 50% of the
arrears of maintenance amount on or before
20.06.2025.
2.Post the matter on 27.06.2025, under 'for reporting
compliance' caption.”
6. When the matter was came up on 30.06.2025, the co-ordinate
bench of this Court passed the following order:
“This Court has passed an order directing the
petitioner to deposit 50% of the arrear amount to the
credit of M.C.No.78 of 2024 on the file of the Family
Court, Karur. Accordingly, the petitioner has
deposited the same and the receipt issued by the
Family Court, Karur is also produced before this
Court. The order of this Court is complied.
2. Admit.
3. Notice.
4.Post on 23.07.2025.”
7. Today, when the matter is taken up, Mr.D.Venkatachalam,
learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that an amount of
Rs. 22,500/- has already been deposited before the Family Court, Karur,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 03:05:43 pm )
in compliance with the order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the coordinate
Bench of this Court. The receipt evidencing the said payment has also
been produced before this Court and is already on record. Thus, he prays
this Court to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated
19.04.2025 passed by the Family Court, Karur, in M.C. No. 78 of 2024.
8. Per contra, Mr.J.Sathiyaraj, learned counsel for the Respondent
submitted that the Family Court has passed the impugned order after duly
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the
statements of both the Petitioner and the Respondent. It is contended
that, in such circumstances, and in order to meet the ends of justice, the
impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court. There is
no illegality, impropriety, or perversity in the impugned order, nor does it
reflect any abuse of the process of the Court.
9. The learned counsel for the Respondent prays that this Court
may direct the Trial Court to release the amount deposited by the
Petitioner within the time frame fixed by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 03:05:43 pm )
10. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the
parties and also perused the record.
11. 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.6,000/- for the Respondent,
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 Respondent, has not been denied.
12. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 03:05:43 pm )
13. In view of the above, the Criminal Revision Petition lacks
merit and stands dismissed and the Trial Court is directed to proceed the
matter in accordance with law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition stands closed.
14. The Respondent is permitted to file an appropriate application
before the Family Court, Karur, seeking withdrawal of the sum of
Rs.22,500/- (Rupees Twenty-Two Thousand Five Hundred only), which
has already been deposited by the Petitioner. Upon receipt of such
application, the Family Court, Karur, is directed to process the same and
release the aforesaid amount to the Respondent, if not already
withdrawn, within a period of ten (10) days from the date of receipt of
the application.
Index :Yes / No 09.09.2025
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
Nsr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 03:05:43 pm )
To:
1.The Family Court, Karur.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 03:05:43 pm )
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Nsr
Order made in
09.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 03:05:43 pm )
