The court upheld a maintenance award under S.125 CrPC, ruling that such provisions are intended to prevent destitution, and the quantum of maintenance must be sufficient to reflect reasonable costs of living without being excessive.

Prayer: To call for the records and set aside the Order dated 21.06.2025 passed in Crl.R.P.No.20 of 2022 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode, and confirm the order dated 26.04.2022 passed in M.C.No.6 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, by allowing this criminal revision petition and pass such further or other orders as it may deem fit and thus render justice.

ORDER

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the Order dated 21.06.2025 passed in Crl.R.P.No.20 of 2022 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode, and confirm the order dated 26.04.2022 passed in M.C.No.6 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, by allowing this criminal revision petition

2. The facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner and the Respondent got married on 05.06.1977 and out of their wed lock, two children were born. The Respondenthad filed MC.No.06 of 2021, seeking maintenance, before the Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai and the said petition was dismissed by the order, dated 26.04.2022, which was challenged in Crl.RP.No.20 of 2022 by the Respondent, before the I Additional District and Sessions, Erode. By the impunged order, the impugned order of the Trial Court was set aside and a sum of Rs.3,000/- p.m. was ordered to be paid to the Respondent, as maintenance. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner, seeking the relief, as stated above.

3. This Court heard J.Ranjit Kumar, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.I.Pragadeesh, the learned counsel for the Respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that without assessing the financial capacity of the Revision Petitioner and the means and ability of the Respondent to maintain herself, the Trial Court had passed the impugned order, granting maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000/- p.m. to the Respondent and that without proper application of mind, the impugned order had been passed in a mechanical manner and hence, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed, as prayed for.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the Trial Court had passed the impugned order, after duly considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the statements of both the Petitioner and the Respondent. It is contended that, in such circumstances, and in order to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court. The amount of Rs.3,000/- as maintenance for the Respondent is not too much. There is no illegality, impropriety, or perversity in the impugned order, nor does it reflect any abuse of the process of the Court.

6. This Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the entire materials placed on record.

7. The facts that the Revision Petitioner is the husband of the Respondent has not been denied. The amount fixed towards maintenance by the Court Below is Rs.3,000/- for the Respondent, which, in the present days of rising prices and high cost of living, cannot be considered as excessive or disproportionate or unreasonable. The said monetary relief granted to the Respondent, by the courts below is adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living, to which the aggrieved person is accustomed. The provisions of Section 125 of Cr.PC 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 denied. Further, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or impropriety or