1. The petitioner contested the quantum of interim monthly maintenance fixed by the trial court, while the respondent supported the trial court's assessment of reasonable maintenance. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 105833
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Anand Venkatesh, J
S. Sivabalan – Appellant
Versus
R. Sivasakthipriya – Respondent
CMP No.16467 of 2026 | CMP No.27969 of 2026
Important Points
The High Court upheld the reasonable exercise of discretion by the lower court in fixing interim maintenance and highlighted the need for a specialized approach to resolve matrimonial disputes arising from marriages during the 2020-2022 pandemic period.
Subject
Family Law - Maintenance
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Interim Maintenance - Discretion of Court - The amount fixed as interim maintenance is sustainable if it is reasonable and not exorbitant, and the court below has properly exercised its discretion. (Para 5)
(B) Article 227 of the Constitution - Scope of Interference - The High Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the subordinate court when the discretion has been exercised properly. (Para 5)
(C) Matrimonial Disputes - Pandemic Period (2020-2022) - Recognition that marriages during the lockdown period faced extraordinary pressures, necessitating a separate category of approach and "out of box thinking" for amicable resolution. (Para 8, 9)
Issues: Whether the order fixing interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month was reasonable and warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(B) Article 227 of the Constitution - Scope of Interference - The High Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the subordinate court when the discretion has been exercised properly. (Para 5)
(C) Matrimonial Disputes - Pandemic Period (2020-2022) - Recognition that marriages during the lockdown period faced extraordinary pressures, necessitating a separate category of approach and "out of box thinking" for amicable resolution. (Para 8, 9)
Issues: Whether the order fixing interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month was reasonable and warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: CH. Mohith Sai
For the Respondents: A.M. Packianathan Easter, Agathian J. Pandian
For the Appellants/Petitioners: CH. Mohith Sai
For the Respondents: A.M. Packianathan Easter, Agathian J. Pandian
Table of Contents
2. The High Court found that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in fixing the interim maintenance, concluding the amount was reasonable rather than exorbitant. (Para 5 )
3. The High Court will not interfere with the discretionary exercise of power by a lower court under Article 227 if the trial court has correctly appraised the evidence. (Para 5 )
4. The revision petition was dismissed, the trial court's order maintained, and the lower court was directed to dispose of the pending original petition within a fixed timeline. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Does the High Court have jurisdiction to revise an order on interim maintenance under Article 227?
Yes, but the Court will only interfere if there is an improper exercise of discretion; if the trial court has exercised its discretion reasonably, the High Court will not disturb the order. (Para 5 )
6. How should courts approach matrimonial disputes involving marriages contracted between 2020 and 2022?
The Court suggested that these cases require out-of-the-box thinking due to the extraordinary circumstances caused by the pandemic, as these parties faced unique relationship pressures while living together during lockdowns. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dt.30.03.2026 made in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.P.No.377 of 2023, on the file of the Sub Court, Alandur.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 30.03.2026 passed in I.A.No. 2 of 2025 in O.P.No. 377 of 2023 on the file of the Sub Court, Alandur, wherein the Court below based on the application filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, fixed a sum of Rs.10,000/- as interim maintenance payable by the petitioner to the respondent.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and carefully perused the materials available on record and this Court also carefully went through the order passed by the Court below.
3.When this Civil Revision Petition was entertained by this Court on14.07.2026, as an interim measure, this Court directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month and further directed the petitioner to pay the arrears of maintenance as per the impugned order.
4.The arrears of maintenance have been paid as directed by this Court and the monthly interim maintenance is also being paid at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month.
5.In the considered view of this Court, the Court below has properly exercised its discretion and fixed the interim monthly maintenance at Rs.10,000/- per month, payable by the petitioner to the respondent and the amount fixed by the Court below is reasonable and not exorbitant. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and interfere with the same.
6.In view of the above, the order dated 30.03.2026 passed in in I.A.No. 2 of 2025 in O.P.No. 377 of 2023 on the file of the Sub Court, Alandur, is sustained. In view of the same, the petitioner is directed to remit the arrears of maintenance, since as per the interim order passed by this Court only Rs.7,000/- was paid per month as monthly maintenance and the same shall be paid, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Considering the fact that the Original Petition is of the year 2023, there shall be a direction to the Sub Court, Alandur, to dispose of O.P.No. 377 of 2023, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
7.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
8.Before drawing the curtains in the present case, this Court has noticed that, in the last three months, in almost every matrimonial dispute that has reached this Court, the marriages had taken place between the parties between the years 2019 to 2022. In more than 95% of those cases, the parties had hardly lived together for six to nine months and in some cases, they had lived together only for three months. Incidentally, that period was when there was a total lockdown due to the pandemic situation. The Coronovirus has not only taken away human lives but had also destroyed the institution of marriage during that period. Since the parties were inside the same house, the best and worst aspects of their characters were exposed and most of them were under pressure, thinking about their future and it had a direct impact on their marital relationship. Therefore, those matrimonial disputes that arose during this period viz., 2000 to 2022, must be dealt with as a separate category and out of box thinking is required to resolve these disputes. This is in view of the fact that the parties lived together hardly for only a few months and they were going through extraordinary circumstances due to the pandemic. Hence, this Court is inclined to see if a different method can be adopted to resolve all those matrimonial disputes that has taken place during
