Madras High Court
Sindhu vs State Represented By on 16 September, 2025
Author: T.V. Thamilselvi
Bench: T.V. Thamilselvi
CRL R.C. No. 1477 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 16.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI
Crl. R.C. No. 1477 of 2024
Sindhu, Female/Aged-36 years,
W/o.Vinoth,
D/o Mathivanan,
No.1/69, Main Road,
Alankottai Village, Mannargudi Taluk,
Thiruvarur. ...Petitioner
Versus
1.State Represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Mannargudi.
(Crime No.02/2020)
2.Vinoth
S/o.Selvaraj
Presently Residing at:
No.18211, Bulverde Road,
APT 4208, San Antonio, TX, 78259,
United States of America.
Permanently Residing at:
VadakuStreet, Melaththirupaalakudi,
Mannargudi Taluk. ... Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 06:41:58 pm )
CRL R.C. No. 1477 of 2024
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 read with
Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 to recall and cancel the Non Bailable
Warrant on 24.07.2024 with an affidavit dated 11.07.2024 before the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Mannargudi in Crl.M.P.No.5206 of
2024 and the same was allowed by an order dated 05.08.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr. Swamisubramanian.
For Respondents : Dr. C.E. Pratap, Government Advocate
(Crl.Side) for R1.
Mr. S. Arivazhagan for R2.
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Revision has been filed to set aside the order passed
in Crl.M.P.No.5206 of 2024 dated 05.08.2024 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.1, Mannargudi.
2.When this matter was taken up for hearing, both the petitioner
and the second respondent appeared as per the direction of this Court.
The learned counsel for the second respondent submits that after
recalling the warrant, the second respondent / husband of the petitioner is
regularly attending the Court and as on date major witnesses were
examined and the case is posted for evidence of the Investigation Officer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 06:41:58 pm )
and thus, sought for dismissing the petition.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, raised
strong objection stating that the learned Magistrate has erroneously
recalled the Non bailable Warrant issued against the second respondent
and sought for setting aside the said order passed by the trial Court by
stating that after recalling of the Non Bailable Warrant, the second
respondent did not attend the court regularly and as on date, the trial has
not yet completed and the fact remains that out of the marriage, they have
got a son named Guru who is a special child and he is under the care of
the petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that there is no material to show that the second respondent
was paying any maintenance to his child.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has also
raised his objections stating that the second respondent has not attended
the court regularly for years together and thus, the case filed against him
was split up. It is further submitted that the quash petitions which have
been filed by the second respondent, was dismissed by this Court by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 06:41:58 pm )
order dated 22.12.2021 and thus, sought for dismissing the petition.
5.Heard the parties and perused the materials available on record.
6.It is seen from the records that the second respondent is working
in USA and the child is also a USA citizen. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the second respondent that he is taking care of the child and
the child has been given treatment in USA. It is also submitted that the
second respondent is attending the court regularly and therefore, the
order passed by the learned Magistrate recalling the warrant issued
against the second respondent needs no interference.
7.However, it is seen that as on date, the child is under the care of
the petitioner and was continuing his treatment. Though it is not the
scope of this petition, considering the submissions and the treatment
undergoing by the child, this Court feels that the child requires an interim
maintenance. Hence, the second respondent is directed to pay a sum of
Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner and the child as interim maintenance and
also directed to pay the educational expenses to the child within the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 06:41:58 pm )
five days of every English Calendar month and the said payments shall
start from this month (September 2025) itself and the petitioner is
directed to pay this maintenances until it is modified by any Court of law.
8.With the above directions, this petition is disposed of.
16.09.2025
ay
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking order
To
1.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Mannargudi.
3.The Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Mannargudi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 06:41:58 pm )
T.V. THAMILSELVI, J
ay
16.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 06:41:58 pm )
