Madras High Court
Balashanmugam vs Sumathi on 16 September, 2025
CRL.R.C.(MD)No.1199 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL.R.C.(MD)No.1199 of 2025
and
CRL.M.P.(MD)No.11608 of 2025
Balashanmugam ... Petitioner
vs.
1.Sumathi
W/o.Balashanmugam,
62, Othaveedu, Keelarangiyam,
Allinagaram Post, Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
2.Minor B.Gokulraj,
S/o.Balashanmugam,
62, Othaveedu, Keelarangiyam,
Allinagaram Post, Thiruppuvanam,
Sivagangai District.
3.Minor B.Kaleeswaran,
S/o.Balashanmugam,
62,Othaveedu, Keelarangiyam,
Allinagaram Post, Thiruppuvanam,
Sivagangai District.
(The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are represented
through the respondent No.1) ... Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 01:03:46 pm )
CRL.R.C.(MD)No.1199 of 2025
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442
of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records of the learned District Munsif-
cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppuvanam in M.C.No.4 of 2022 and to set
aside the order, dated 30.05.2025 and allow the Criminal Revision.
For Petitioner :Mr.P.Saravanakumar
For Respondent :Mr.A.Karthick
*****
ORDER
Heard Mr.P.Saravanakumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
2.This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the impugned judgement and order, dated 30.05.2025 passed in
M.C.No.4 of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial
Magistrate Court, Thiruppuvanam, by which the first respondent/wife
was awarded Rs.4,000/-per month, and the respondents 2 and 3 were
awarded Rs.5,000/- each per month as maintenance.
3.Mr.P.Saravana Kumar, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 01:03:46 pm )
was solemnized on 10.09.2004. Due to difference of opinion, they are
living separately and the first respondent has filed a petition in M.C.No.4
of 2022 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the District Munsif-cum-
Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruppuvanam, seeking maintenance and the
learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppuvanam, vide
judgment and order, dated 30.05.2025, awarded Rs.4,000/- per month as
maintenance to the first respondent and Rs.5,000/- per month each to the
respondents 2 and 3, in total Rs.14,000/- per month.
4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner is working as a coolie and receiving only a meager salary and
is, therefore, unable to pay a sum of Rs.14,000/- per month towards
maintenance to the respondents. He further submits that the learned
District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppuvanam, had 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 learned
District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppuvanam, after recording
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 01:03:46 pm )
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.4,000/- per month as
maintenance to the first respondent and Rs.5,000/- per month each to the
respondents 2 and 3, in total Rs.14,000/- per month.
5. I have considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the
petitioner 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.14,000/- per month to 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 01:03:46 pm )
denied. The fact that the petitioner is the husband of the first respondent,
has not been denied.
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 16.09.2025
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
cmr
To
The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppuvanam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 01:03:46 pm )
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
cmr
16.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 01:03:46 pm )
