Madras High Court
CRL RC/1137/2025 of S.DEVA @ DEVENDIRAN Vs POONGODI @ MOHANA on 24 September 2026
CRL RC No. 1137 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL RC No. 1137 of 2025
and Crl.M.P.No.14185 of 2025
CNR: {HCMA010151772025}
S.Deva @ Devendiran
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Poongodi @ Mohana
2. Minor D.Varunika
Rep. By Her Natural Guardian & Mother
Mrs.Poongodi @ Mohana
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the Family Court, Thiruvallur in MC.No.36 of 2022 dated 26.02.2024 and set aside the same.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S.I.Sharukumar
For Respondent(s):
Mr. D.Ilayaraja
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
This Criminal Revision Case challenges the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Tiruvallur, awarding monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to the second respondent herein.
CRL RC No. 1137 of 2025
2. It is the case of the first respondent that she married the petitioner on 07.11.2013 and out of the wedlock, the second respondent was born; that due to marital differences, they have been living separately; and that she was unable to maintain herself and the child and that the petitioner is bound to maintain them.
3. The petitioner filed a counter statement stating that the first respondent, without any excuse, left the matrimonial home; that the first respondent is employed and earning sufficiently; that she has married a person with whom she had an extra marital affair; that the petitioner’s salary is only Rs.29,000/-, out of which he has to pay for the medical expenses of his parents; and that therefore, the respondents are not entitled to maintenance.
4. Before the Family Court, the first respondent examined herself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. The petitioner examined himself as RW1 and marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. The Family Court, on the basis of the evidence, held that the claim of the petitioner that he was earning only a sum of Rs.25,000/- cannot be accepted; that even according to him, his monthly expenses are more than Rs.45,000/- and that he had not produced salary slip. The Family Court quantified the maintenance payable to the second respondent at Rs.15,000/-. The Family Court also found that the first respondent was
CRL RC No. 1137 of 2025
capable of maintaining herself and therefore, held that she was not entitled to maintenance.
5. There is no dispute that the petitioner is bound to maintain the second respondent. As regards the quantum, considering the status of the parties, the expenses involved for maintaining the second respondent and the fact that the petitioner had suppressed his actual income, this Court is of the view that the amount quantified by the Family Court is just and reasonable and no interference is called for.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 24-09-2026 Neutral Citation: Yes/No ham To The Judge, Family Court, Thiruvallur.
CRL RC No. 1137 of 2025
SUNDER MOHAN, J. ham CRL RC No. 1137 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.14185 of 2025 24-09-2026