CRL RC/1307/2025 of M.Saravana Pratap Vs Gifta on 29 September 2026

ORDER

The Revision challenges the order passed by the learned Additional Mahila Court at Alandur directing the petitioner to pay a maintenance of

CRL RC No. 1307 of 2025

Rs.20,000/- to the first respondent and Rs.40,000/- to the second respondent.

2. It is the case of the first respondent herein that she got married to the petitioner on 20.03.2021; that thereafter she was subjected to cruelty on account of dowry demand; that differences arose between the parties; that she was forced to leave the matrimonial home within two months of marriage; that thereafter, she gave birth to a child; and that the petitioner is liable to maintain both the respondents. She sought for Rs.1,50,000/- as monthly maintenance.

3. The petitioner filed a counter stating that the first respondent is capable of maintaining herself; that she was a teacher; that she left the matrimonial house without any sufficient cause; that he is not earning Rs.10,00,000/- per month as claimed by the first respondent; and that the amount claimed by the first respondent is excessive.

4. The first respondent examined herself as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P4. The petitioner had examined himself as RW1 and marked

CRL RC No. 1307 of 2025

Exts.R1 to R3 through PW1, during cross examination.

5. The trial Court found that the petitioner was liable to maintain the respondents and quantified the maintenance as stated above.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has stated in his affidavit of assets and liabilities that his income was Rs.15,000/- per month as he was only working as a manager in a gym; that he had no properties of his own; that the first respondent had not established the monthly income of the petitioner; that the trial Court had taken into consideration certain irrelevant documents, which were not marked in evidence; that the petitioner was not capable of paying such huge maintenance; and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents per contra submitted that the petitioner has a made a false statement in his affidavit of assets and liabilities; that the first respondent had filed the affidavit of assets, enclosing the documents and photographs, to establish that the petitioner

CRL RC No. 1307 of 2025

was not working as a manager in the gym but, owned it and was also into real estate business and owned expensive cars; and that therefore, in the absence of any evidence let in by the petitioner to the contrary, the finding of the learned Magistrate holding the petitioner liable to pay maintenance and the quantum fixed by the magistrate are justified.

8. As stated above, it is not in dispute that the respondents are the wife and son of the petitioner respectively. The petitioner had marked three documents. The first document evidenced a G-Pay payment made to the first respondent herein for a sum of Rs.5,000/-, the second document is a series of medical bills of the first respondent and the third document is the photograph of the first respondent. It is not known as to how these documents are relevant to counter the points raised by the respondents.

9. Be that as it may, the respondents have filed an affidavit of assets and liabilities, along with certain documents, to prove that the petitioner was running his own business, was taking care of real estate business and promoting flats and also was running a gym as its proprietor. They have also produced documents to show that the petitioner owned buildings and

CRL RC No. 1307 of 2025

in one of the buildings, he was running a women's hostel. The first respondent has also filed the copies of the encumbrance certificates to prove the properties in the name of the petitioner and his parents and that the petitioner is the only son of his parents. No evidence has been let in, as stated above by the petitioner, to prove the contrary.

10. Considering all the above facts, this Court is of the view that there absolutely no infirmity in the impugned order holding the petitioner liable to pay maintenance and fixing the quantum as stated above.

11. Therefore, the Revision is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 29-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TSG To The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court at Alandur

CRL RC No. 1307 of 2025

SUNDER MOHAN, J. TSG CRL RC No. 1307 of 2025 & CRL MP No. 14977 of 2025 29-09-2026