Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2646/2026 of Balamurali Vs Ramya on 25 September 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.09.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
CRP(MD) NO. 2646 of 2026
{CNR: HCMD011327322026}
Case QR
and
C.M.P(MD)No.13295 of 2026
Balamurali
...Petitioner
Vs.
Ramya
...Respondent
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 30.04.2026 passed in IA.No.2 of 2026 in HMOP.No.49 of 2023 on the file of the Sub Court, Aranthangi and allow this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : M/s.G.Dhivya Barathi
for M/s.KBS Law Office
*****
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 30.04.2026 passed in IA.No.2 of 2026 in HMOP.No.49 of 2023 on the file of the Sub Court, Aranthangi.
2. The revision petitioner is the husband and the respondent is his wife. The petitioner/husband instituted H.M.O.P. No. 49 of 2023 seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty. During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a direction to the petitioner/husband to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month towards interim maintenance and litigation expenses. By order dated 30.04.2026, the trial Court directed the petitioner/husband to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month towards interim maintenance. Challenging the said order, the petitioner/husband has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is earning only a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month as salary and that he is not in a position to pay the sum of Rs.25,000/- ordered by the trial Court. On that ground, the petitioner sought to set aside the order passed by the trial Court.
4. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the marriage between the petitioner/husband and the respondent/wife was solemnized on 06.01.2018. A female child, namely, Monisha Sri, was born through the wedlock. According to the respondent/wife, owing to the harassment and cruelty allegedly committed by the petitioner/husband, she is presently residing in her parental home along with the minor child, who is studying in the third standard. The respondent/wife contends that she is unable to maintain herself and the child and meet the child’s educational expenses.
5. According to the respondent/wife, the petitioner/husband is employed in Government service and is earning a substantial salary. It is further alleged that he is deriving rental income of approximately Rs.2,00,000/- from commercial buildings.
6. Though the petitioner/husband seriously opposed the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, he did not produce his salary certificate or any other reliable document before the trial Court to establish his actual monthly income. Taking into consideration the fact that the respondent/wife and the minor child are dependent upon the petitioner/husband and that expenses have to be incurred towards the child’s education and other necessities, the trial Court allowed the application and directed the petitioner/husband to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month towards the interim maintenance of the respondent/wife and the minor child.
7. The petitioner/husband further contended that the respondent/wife had already instituted D.V.C. No. 7 of 2024 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Manamelkudi, and had sought interim maintenance both in the said proceedings and in the matrimonial proceedings. However, it is not in dispute that no order of maintenance has been passed in D.V.C.No. 7 of 2024. The petitioner/husband has also not denied that he is employed in Government service. Even before this Court, he has not produced any salary certificate or other material to establish his actual income.
8. The trial Court, upon careful consideration of the materials available on record, assessed the financial capacity of the petitioner/husband vis-à-vis the reasonable needs of the respondent/wife and the minor child. Having regard to the prevailing cost of living, inflation and the educational and medical requirements of the minor child, the aggregate interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate. This Court finds no jurisdictional error, perversity or patent illegality in the approach adopted by the trial Court warranting interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The order dated 30.04.2026 passed in IA.No.2 of 2026 in HMOP.No.49 of 2023 on the file of the Sub Court, Aranthangi, is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
25.09.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RM To The Sub Court, Aranthangi.
R. POORNIMA,
J.
RM C.R.P(MD)No.2646 of 2026 25.09.2026