CRL RC/1015/2023 of S.P.JANAGAN Vs S.PREMALATHA@MEENAKSHI on 28 September 2026

Order

The petitioner/husband aggrieved by the order dated 07.12.2022 passed in M.C.No.511 of 2016 by the learned VII Additional Principal Judge, Chennai, granting maintenance to the respondents herein has filed the above revision. 2 (i) It is the case of the 1st respondent herein/wife that she married the petitioner on 29.06.2014; that a male child (2nd respondent) was born on 02.12.2015; that she had asked the petitioner to set up a separate matrimonial home since she faced ill-treatment at the hands of her in- laws; that since the petitioner did not heed to her request, she was forced to live with her parents from 03.07.2015; and that the petitioner, employed in an IT company was earning more than Rs.80,000/- per month, was not paying any maintenance to her and the child and therefore, maintenance has to be awarded.

(ii) The petitioner herein/husband filed a counter inter alia stating that the 1st respondent had left the matrimonial home without any reasonable excuse; that the petitioner and his relatives had requested the 1st respondent to come back to the matrimonial home and the 1st respondent was refusing to do so; that the petitioner was willing to live with the respondents; and that in any case, since the 1st respondent was well qualified and had sufficient source of income, she was not entitled to maintenance.

(iii) The 1st respondent herein examined herself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. The petitioner examined himself as RW1 and marked Ex.R1.

(iv) The trial Court after considering the evidence on record held that the 1st respondent was forced to live away from the petitioner and that the petitioner is liable to pay a maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month to the 1st respondent/wife and Rs.20,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent/child.

3. Mr.Marudhachalamurthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order suffers from several infirmities; that though an issue was framed as to whether the 1st respondent had left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause, no finding was rendered by the Family Court; that the 1st respondent had suppressed the fact that she was Director in a company; and that the Family Court had not taken into consideration the salary of the petitioner and had relied upon a letter said to have been written by the grandfather of the petitioner, in which he had stated that the petitioner owned several properties and was earning well. He further submitted that in any case, the trial Court ought not to have awarded maintenance in excess of what was claimed by the respondents.

4. (i) Mr.J.Saravana Vel, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order of the Family Court is based on the evidence on record; that in any case, it is not perverse so as to warrant interference in a revision; that the evidence would show that the 1st respondent had sufficient cause for leaving the matrimonial home; and that the Family Court was justified in awarding maintenance commensurate with the status of the parties, though in the prayer, the respondents had claimed Rs.20,000/- each towards maintenance.

(ii) . The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had not paid the arrears of maintenance; that this Court had granted interim stay by the order dated 09.02.2026 on condition that the petitioner should pay Rs.20 Lakhs to the respondents on or before 20.02.2026; that the petitioner paid only Rs.9,35,000/- and did not pay the balance sum towards arrears, hence by order dated 19.02.2026, four weeks time was granted by this Court; that the petitioner had challenged both the orders before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dismissed the Special Leave Petitions with an observation that the hearing of the proceedings inter se the parties, are to be expedited.

5. In the impugned order relevant portions of the deposition of the parties, are extracted. The 1st respondent had in her cross-examination stated that she was subjected to ill-treatment by her in-laws. In fact, even in her petition for restitution of conjugal rights, in O.P.No.1013 of 2017 before the Family Court, she had reiterated that though she intended to live with the petitioner, it was not possible for her to live in a joint family. The petitioner had through his counsel elaborately cross-examined the 1st respondent on this aspect. However, nothing has been elicited to suggest that the 1st respondent had left the matrimonial home without any reasonable excuse. On the other hand, the 1st respondent had reiterated the reason for her leaving the matrimonial home. Therefore, this Court is of the view that since the evidence discloses that the 1st respondent was forced to leave the matrimonial home, the absence of a specific finding in that regard by the Family Court would not invalidate the order.

6. The fact that the petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent and the father of the 2nd respondent is not in dispute. It is seen that the petitioner has not filed his Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he had only filed a Counter Affidavit in reply to the Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities filed by the 1st respondent. This does not satisfy the requirement under law which specifically requires the parties to file Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities.

7. Be that as it may. The petitioner had admitted in his cross- examination that he was working as an Associate Manager in a private company; that his monthly salary was Rs.1,10,000/-; and that his take home salary was Rs.1,03,000/-. Though the petitioner had marked Ex.R1 to prove that the 1st respondent was a Director in a Company, the 1st respondent had explained stating that she was made a Director only to satisfy the statutory requirement and that she was not earning any income from that company. There is no evidence to the contrary by the petitioner. The 1st respondent therefore, had established that she had no other independent source of income and that the petitioner is bound to maintain her and the minor child, who is now aged 10 years.

8. Though the respondents claimed Rs.20,000/- each per month, the Family Court found that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.30,000/- per month to the 1st respondent/wife and Rs.20,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent/child. This cannot be faulted as the maintenance case was filed in the year 2016 and the order was passed in 2022. The income of the petitioner by then would have certainly increased. Similarly, the expenses of the respondents would have also increased. Therefore, in order to strike a balance this Court is of the view that the said quantum of maintenance can be modified as follows: “the petitioner shall be liable to pay maintenance to the respondents at the rate of Rs.20,000/- each per month for a period, from the date of filing of the petition till 31.12.2020 and would be liable to pay the maintenance awarded by the Family Court from 01.01.2021 onwards.”

9. While fixing the date as 31.12.2020, as stated above, this Court had taken into consideration the prayer of the respondents, the date of the petition, the date of the passing of the order and other relevant factors.

10. The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, accordingly. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 28-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ars

SUNDER MOHAN J. ars To The VII Additional Family Court, Chennai. Pre-delivery order in CRL RC No. 1015 of 2023 AND CRL MP Nos.8118 & 8821 of 2023 and 3105 of 2026 28-09-2026