Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 49182
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Shamim Ahmed, J
Prewin Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Keerthana – Respondent
CRL RC No. 268 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: J.Maheswaran
For the Respondents: S.Muthu Kumar
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure serves as a remedial and welfare measure intended to prevent the vagrancy of destitute spouses by ensuring maintenance amounts are fixed reasonably in proportion to the cost of living and accustomed standard of living, absent clear legal perversity.
Headnote:The case involves a petition for revision against an order of maintenance passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The underlying facts indicate that a marriage between the parties resulted in two children, but subsequent matrimonial disputes led to the separation of the spouse. The Trial Court ordered a monthly maintenance amount for the spouse and the two children. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the maintenance amount was excessive and fixed without proper assessment of financial ability. The Court held that the maintenance awarded was fair and reasonable, aligning with the rising cost of living and the standard of living of the parties. The core issues framed were whether the trial court failed to assess financial capacity appropriately and whether the maintenance awarded was excessive. The ratio decidendi established that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a welfare provision designed to prevent the vagrancy of a destitute spouse and provide support based on accustomed standards of living. The Court determined that in the absence of manifest illegality or impropriety, a discretionary maintenance order should not be disturbed merely on the grounds of dissatisfaction with the amount, provided it is reasonable. The final result of the court was the dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case as devoid of merits, thereby upholding the trial court's order.
Key Points: - Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a welfare provision designed to prevent the vagrancy of a destitute spouse and provide support based on accustomed standards of living (!) (!) . - The maintenance amount fixed by the trial court was Rs.17,500/- per month for the Respondent and her two children, which cannot be considered excessive or disproportionate given the rising cost of living (!) (!) . - A discretionary maintenance order under Section 125 should not be disturbed merely on dissatisfaction with the amount if it is reasonable and there is no manifest illegality or impropriety (!) (!) . - The core issue was whether the trial court failed to assess financial capacity appropriately and whether the maintenance awarded was excessive (!) (!) . - The Court held that the impugned order does not warrant interference as it was adequate, fair, and reasonable, consistent with the standard of living of the parties (!) (!) . - The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed as devoid of merits, upholding the trial court's order (!) . - No order as to costs was made (!) .
What are the rights of a spouse and children to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
How to determine if a maintenance amount is excessive or fair under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
What is the standard for interfering with a trial court's discretionary maintenance order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of procedural history and factual background regarding marriage and maintenance application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the financial capability of the petitioner and the necessity of maintenance. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's reasoning on the purpose of section 125 crpc and the reasonableness of maintenance amounts. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
Prayer:-To set aside the orders dated 22.09.2025 in M.C.No.106 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Tiruppur, and allow the above Criminal Revision Petition.
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order, dated 22.09.2025, passed in MC.No.106 pf 2024, by the Principal Family Court, Tiruppur.
2. The facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner/Husband and the Respondent/Wife got married on 22.02.2015 and out of their wed lock, two children, Sathurvidha dnd Sathvick, were born on 28.12.2015 amd 11.07.2020, respectively. Due to matrimonial dispute, the Respondent left the matrimonial home and had filed MC.No.106 of 2024, seeking maintenance. By the impunged order, a sum of Rs.17,500/- p.m. was ordered to be paid to the Respondent (Rs.7,500/-) and her two children, namely, Sathurvidha dnd Sathvick, (Rs.10,000/-) as maintenance. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner, seeking the relief, as stated above.
3. This Court heard Mr.J.Maheswaran, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.S.Muthu Kumar, the learned counsel for the Respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the Respondent had left the matrimonial home on her own volition and that without assessing the financial capacity of the Revision Petition and the means and ability of the Respondent to maintain herself and her two children, the Trial Court had passed the impugned order, granting interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.17,500/- p.m. to the Respondent and her two children and that the impugned order had been passed in a mechanical manner 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.17,500/- as interim maintenance for the Respondent and her two children 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 and they got two childen have not been denied. The amount fixed towards interim maintenance by the Court Below is Rs.17,500/- for the Respondent and the two Children, 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 incorrectness in the impugned orders, granting such quantum of maintenance, warranting interference by this Court.
8. In such circumstances, to meet the ends of justice, the impugned orders does not require any interference by t
