CRL RC/2237/2026 of M.Kumaran Gideon Vs K.G.Joy on 30 September 2026

ORDER

This revision challenges the order dated 29.07.2026 passed in M.C.No.567 of 2022 by the learned II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent herein.

2. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

Crl.R.C.No.2237 of 2026

3. It is the case of the respondent before the Court below that the petitioner and the respondent got married on 13.07.2020; that after marriage they were living at Villivakkam; that thereafter, differences arose between them and therefore, the respondent was forced to leave the matrimonial home; that, the petitioner sent a notice for divorce and a case is pending before the Court concerned; that, the petitioner refused to take the respondent back, and that, the petitioner was liable to maintain the respondent.

4. The petitioner filed a counter stating that it was the respondent who had left the matrimonial home without any sufficient cause; that she was never a dutiful wife; that she was leading an adulterous life; that the petitioner has to take care of the child who has an intellectual disability, and that, in any case, the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance.

5. Before the Family Court, the respondent examined herself as PW1 and marked Exhibits P1 to P6 and the petitioner examined himself as RW1 and marked Exhibits R1 to R11. The Trial Court, after perusing the materials placed before it, found that the respondent had established her marriage with the petitioner; that the petitioner is bound to maintain the respondent; and quantified the maintenance at Rs.10,000/- per month.

Crl.R.C.No.2237 of 2026

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order suffers from several infirmities; that the respondent had left the matrimonial home without any valid excuse; that she had suppressed the fact that she was a divorcee and hence, the marriage itself is invalid and that, in any case, the quantum awarded by the trial Court is excessive, considering the financial status of the petitioner.

7. It is not in dispute that the respondent had lived with the petitioner after their marriage. It is not the case of petitioner that the respondent had suppressed a subsisting marriage. However, it is his case that while registering their marriage, the respondent claimed herself to be a spinster, though she was a divorcee.

8. This Court is of the view that the said false claim made at the time of registration would not render the marriage of the respondent with the petitioner invalid. Further, the petitioner had not established that the respondent has sufficient means to maintain herself. On the other hand, the evidence discloses that the petitioner is working in the Railways and is earning a sum of Rs.62,546/- per month.

Crl.R.C.No.2237 of 2026

9. Therefore, the finding of the Family Court holding the petitioner liable to pay maintenance and quantifying the maintenance at Rs.10,000/- per month cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable, and there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned order.

10. For the reasons aforesaid, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. 30.09.2026 skt Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No To: The II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.

Crl.R.C.No.2237 of 2026

SUNDER MOHAN, J. skt Crl.R.C.No.2237 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.No.18486 of 2026 30.09.2026