Madras High Court
CRL RC/2076/2026 of Meiyanantham Vs Gomathi @ Kodeeswari on 21 September 2026
CRL RC No. 2076 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL RC No. 2076 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA010341432026}
Meiyanantham
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Gomathi @ Kodeeswari
2. Venkatji Gandhi.M
[R2 minor, rep. By R1/Mother]
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Revision filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 of the BNSS Act, to set aside the order dated 06.08.2024 made in MC.No.34/2023 passed by the Family Court, Erode For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Meiyanatham
(Party-in-Person)
For Respondent(s):
Mr.J.Ranjithkumar
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 revision challenges the order passed by the Family Court at Erode, awarding maintenance of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Only) to the second respondent herein.
2. It is the case of the first respondent that she got married to the petitioner on 16.05.2012; that a child was born out of the wedlock; that thereafter differences arose between the petitioner and the first respondent and the first respondent was forced to live alone and she is taking care of the minor child.
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:41:02 pm )
CRL RC No. 2076 of 2026
3. The petitioner filed a counter to the petition before the Trial Court stating that though the petitioner was working in a private concern, his income is very meagre; that the first respondent is a B.Ed. Graduate and is earning sufficiently and therefore, the petition is not maintainable. Before the Family Court, the first respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and one Sampath Kumar as P.W.2. She has marked Exhibits P.1 to P6. The petitioner herein neither examined any witness nor marked any documents.
4. The Trial Court found that the first respondent was earning sufficiently and therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. There is no challenge to the said finding. However, the Family Court found that the second respondent is aged about 13 years and the petitioner, as a father, is bound to maintain the child and quantified maintenance at Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Only) per month.
5. Considering the status of the parties and the income of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the amount quantified by the Trial Court is just and no interference is called for. The present Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.17734 of 2026 is closed. 21-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No (drm)
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:41:02 pm )
CRL RC No. 2076 of 2026
To:
1. The Family Court, Erode.
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:41:02 pm )
CRL RC No. 2076 of 2026
SUNDER MOHAN, J. (drm) CRL.R.C.No.2076 of 2026 21-09-2026
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:41:02 pm )