Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 224
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.
D.Vijayakumar - Petitioner
Versus
B.Kalaivani – Respondent
Crl.O.P.Nos.3287, 3289 & 3291 of 2026
Decided On : 11-02-2026
Important Points
Subject
Family Law - Maintenance
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) The definition of functus officio and the powers of the Family Court were reiterated, emphasizing its jurisdiction to modify ongoing orders based on changes. The Supreme Court's ruling indicates that the Magistrate retains authority to revisit decisions under specific conditions. (Paras 6, 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner challenged the Family Court's maintenance order, stating the wife was employed and the son’s school fees were waived under the Right to Education Act. The orders were returned due to administrative claims instead of reviewing merits.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order returned by the Family Court was unsatisfactory, denying the petitioner’s right to contest based on changed circumstances.
Issues: The main issues were about the suppression of material facts regarding income and the Family Court's authority to modify maintenance orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Family Court erred in returning the petitions without merit consideration, affirming the principles that maintenance orders under the Cr.P.C can be amended based on changes in circumstance as supported by relevant sections.
Result: The docket orders returned by the Family Court were set aside and the petitions directed to be taken on file for consideration.
For the Petitioner: Mr. M. Nirmalkumar
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. family court's continuing jurisdiction under section 125 cr.p.c. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 2. court's recognition of family court's errors. (Para 8) |
| 3. final orders on petitions and directions for future proceedings. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
ORDER :
A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.
These criminal original petitions have been filed seeking to quash the return docket orders, all dated 30.12.2025 passed in M.P.SR.Nos.3489, NIL and 3488 of 2025 respectively in M.C.No.596 of 2022, on the file of the III Additional Family Court, Chennai.
2. Since no order adverse to the interest of the respondents is passed, notice to the respondents in all these petitions is dispensed with.
3. The brief facts are as follows:
3.1 The 1st and 2nd respondents herein are none other than the wife and son of the petitioner and the 1st respondent on her behalf and on behalf of her minor son/the 2nd respondent herein, filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to direct the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month towards maintenance in their favour, by suppressing the fact that 1st respondent has been working as a Teacher in Everwin Matriculation school since 2022 and earning a sum of Rs.9,990/- and that the 2nd respondent/son has been studying in the very same school where the 1st respondent is working and his school fees has been waived under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
3.2 The III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai, without considering any of the above said facts, vide order dated 14.06.2024, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance in favour of the 1st respondent/wife and Rs.15,000/- per month towards maintenance in favour of the 2nd respondent/son. Subsequently, the 1st respondent on her behalf and on behalf of the minor son, the 2nd respondent herein, filed petitions under Section 125 (3) of Cr.P.C. in Crl.MP.No.870 of 2025 and NIL of 2025 in M.C.No.596 of 2022 respectively, seeking to direct the petitioner to pay the arrears of maintenance and to continue to pay the monthly maintenance awarded by the Family Court.
3.3 Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 127 of Cr.P.C in M.P.SR.No.3489 of 2025 seeking to recall the order dated 14.06.2024 and petitions under Order XVI Rule 6 r/w. 151 of CPC in M.P.SR.No. NIL of 2025 and M.P.SR.No.3488 of 2025, seeking to issue subpoena to the Everwin Matriculation Higher Secondary School represented by its Principal to produce the service records of the 1st respondent and the particulars of the students covered under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and to issue subpoena to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ambattur, Chennai to produce the Bank Statement of the 1st respondent bearing Account No.30074622230, respectively. However, the Family Court, vide docket orders, all dated 30.12.2025, returned the above petitions with the following endorsements:-
“M.P.SR.No.3489 of 2025 :
Sec 127 Cr.P.C. is for only modification or change of circumstances. This petition is appeal against the order of this Court which should be filed only to the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. Hence, this petition is not maintainable."
M.P.SR.No . of 2025 :
Since main petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C returned. Hence this petition also returned.
M.P.SR.No.3488 of 2025 :
Since main petition under Section 127 of Cr.P.C returned, this petition also returned.”
3.4 Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come up with these petitions.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent/wife obtained the above said maintenance order by suppressing several material facts and upon coming to know about the same, the petitioner filed the above petitions to show that the 1st respondent is continuously employed and earning a sum of Rs.9,990/- and that the 2nd respondent/son was admitted to school under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
