Madras High Court
T.Senguttuvan vs S.Sumithra on 26 September, 2025
CRP.(PD)No.1489 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CRP.No.1489 of 2025
and
CMP.Nos.8749 & 16086 of 2025
T.Senguttuvan ... Petitioner
vs.
S.Sumithra .... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, against the order dated 11.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3251 of 2024 in
DVC.No.4 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvotriyur.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.A.Thiyagarajan
For Respondent : Mrs.A.Divya Bharathi
ORDER
Unsuccessful husband has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. The
respondent / wife, namely S.Sumithra, filed a complaint in DVC.No.4 of 2024 on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvotriyur, in which the respondent/wife has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:48 pm )
also filed an application in Crl.MP.No.3251 of 2024 under Section 20(2) of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, praying for a monthly
interim maintenance for a sum of Rs.20,000/- against the respondent /petitioner
herein. Upon hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the Court below,
vide order dated 11.12.2024, allowed the petition and directed the revision
petitioner / husband to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as monthly maintenance to the
petitioner / wife on or before 5th date of every English calendar month and also
directed the revision petitioner / husband to pay another sum of Rs.3,500/-
towards expenses of his 2nd son as interim maintenance, in total the revision
petitioner / husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,500/- to the respondent /
wife on or before 5th date of every English calendar month. Aggrieved over the
same, the husband / revision petitioner has preferred the present Civil Revision
Petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner / husband
would submit that the Court below has failed to consider the fact that the revision
petitioner / husband had volunteered to maintain the 2nd child / son, who is in the
custody of the respondent /wife, but refused to maintain his wife due to her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:48 pm )
immoral / adulterous life. The Court below has also failed to consider the fact
that the revision petitioner is taking care of the 1st child by providing proper
education to him and without considering the fact that the revision
petitioner/husband is ready and willing to maintain the 2nd son as well, the Court
below ought to have awarded maintenance only to the 2nd child / son and not to
the respondent/wife and would further submit that the respondent / wife is running
a eatery shop and earning good amount of income and whereas the revision
petitioner is a Junior Advocate and earning only a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month.
The Court below failed to consider the fact that women living in adultery is not
entitled to get maintenance and therefore, rejected the plea of maintenance and
should have ordered maintenance only to the 2nd child.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / wife would
submit that the revision petitioner relies on an handwritten letter allegedly
authored by the respondent / wife and the said letter merely records that the
respondent/wife left the matrimonial home and specifically absolves the revision
petitioner and his family of responsibility. There is no reference whatsoever to
adultery. The revision petitioner's attempt to portray the letter as proof of adultery
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:48 pm )
is misconceived and misleading. The respondent/wife disclosed her modest
earning of Rs.10,000/- per month from running a small Otho shop. The learned
counsel for the respondent / wife, in support of her contention, has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Ors.
[Manu/SC/0833/2020] to show that even if the wife is earning, she is entitled to
maintenance, if her income is insufficient to sustain her dignity.
4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
5. It is seen from the records that the respondent / wife originally claimed
Rs.20,000/- per month towards interim maintenance. However, the Court below
after due consideration of materials, both oral and documentary evidence,
awarded only a modest sum of Rs.3,500/- per month to the 2nd son and Rs.3,000/-
per month to the respondent / wife. The present challenge is only with regard to
the portion of the order awarding Rs.3,000/- per month awarded to the respondent/
wife. The revision petitioner has not questioned the award of Rs.3,500/- per
month awarded to the minor 2nd son and therefore, the scope of the present Civil
Revision Petition is limited.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:48 pm )
6. The revision petitioner relied on the letter dated 10.11.2024 from his
Senior Advocate to claim that he only earns Rs.5,000/- per month as stipend. It is
to be noted that such a letter is unsupported by any Income Tax Returns, Bank
Statements, Salary Slips etc., and therefore, the same cannot be taken into
consideration as proof of income and on the other hand, the respondent/wife, in
good faith, has disclosed her earning of Rs.10,000/- per month from running the
small Otho shop. The Court below has rightly exercised judicial restraint and
balanced discretion. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order
impugned passed by the Court below and finds no merit in this petition.
7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed, confirming
the order dated 11.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3251 of 2024 in DVC.No.4 of
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
Jvm
2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvotriyur. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:48 pm )
26.09.2025
Intex : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Jvm
To
Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvottriyur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:48 pm )
