Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 32110
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
L. Victoria Gowri, J
T.Bharathidasan – Appellant
Versus
Susmitha – Respondent
CRL.RC.(MD) No.206 of 2026 | CRL MP(MD)No.2451 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. Jeyarani
For the Respondents: S. Sivaprakash
The court upheld the validity of imposing a financial condition for setting aside an ex parte maintenance order when the petitioner has consistently failed to pay the ordered maintenance amount.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a Criminal Revision Petition under section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS to set aside a conditional order passed by the Family Court, Madurai. The Trial Court had allowed a petition to set aside an ex parte maintenance order on the condition that the petitioner pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondents. The petitioner challenged this condition, citing financial hardship and the first respondent's independent income. The primary issue was whether the Trial Court was justified in imposing a financial condition for setting aside an ex parte order. The court observed that the petitioner had failed to cooperate during mediation and had not paid any maintenance to the respondents, including the minor child, since the original order dated 12.10.2023. The court reasoned that there was no demerit in the Trial Court's order given the persistent non-payment of maintenance. In view of the above, this Criminal Revision case is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of the maintenance case and the imposition of a conditional order to set aside an ex parte decree. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. competing arguments regarding the financial capacity of the parties and the history of non-payment. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. justification of conditional orders based on the petitioner's lack of cooperation and failure to provide child support. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. final dismissal of the revision petition and closure of connected petitions. (Para 9) |
Prayer : Criminal Revision Petition, filed under section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS , to set aside the order in Crl MP No.137/2024 in Crl MP No. 4/2024 in MC No.71/2022 order dated 14.07.2025 on the file of the learned Family Court, Madurai.
ORDER
Seeking to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.137 of 2024 in Crl. M.P.No.4 of 2024 in M.C.No.71/2022 order dated 14.07.2025 on the file of the learned Family Court, Madurai, this Criminal Revision case is filed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the first respondent. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was an arranged marriage which was held on 01.12.2019. Within two months of marriage, certain indifferences crept in between them, and the 1st respondent is living separately in her maternal home. The petitioner is an ITI person without employment. In the meanwhile, he had also met with an accident where he happened to undergo a surgery for fracture in his right hand.
3. While being so, the 1st respondent had filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.71 of 2022, which was set ex parte as against the petitioner in which the learned Trial Court directed the petitioner to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each to the respondents 1 and 2. Since the petitioner failed to pay any maintenance, the respondents have filed Crl.M.P.No.4 of 2024 seeking to arrest the petitioner and further directed him to pay the arrear amount through the learned Trial Court and the same is pending. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No. 137 of 2024 in M.C.No.71 of 2022 seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated 12.10.2023. However, the learned Trial Court by an order dated 14.07.2025 allowed the said petition subject to the condition that the petitioner has to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the respondents on or before 13.08.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.4 of 2024, failing which, Crl.M.P.No.137 of 2024 would stand dismissed. Challenging the same, this Criminal Revision case is filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner categorically submitted that the petitioner is struggling to maintain himself. However, the first respondent is a Youtuber with sufficient means, and the petitioner cannot comply with the condition and sought for the indulgence of this Court.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents categorically contended that having not paid even a single amount of maintenance so far from the date of the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 12.10.2023, there is no justification on the part of the petitioner to seek for the indulgence of this Court and sought for dismissal of this Criminal Revision case.
6. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.
7. It is seen that the learned Trial Court in M.C.No.71 of 2022 had passed an ex parte order on 12.10.2023. However, during the pendency of the said maintenance case, both parties were directed to attend mediation where the mediation failed because of the non cooperation by the petitioner, who agreed to pay any amount of maintenance, citing his inability to pay the same. It was only thereafter the said maintenance case was set ex parte as against the petitioner, directing him to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as maintenance to each of the respondents 1 and 2. Even thereafter, the same was not paid, and only under such circumstances, the respondent had filed Crl.M.P.No.
