CRL RC/2253/2026 of Ranganathan Ramani Vs Keerthana Ramani @ Riyah on 3 November 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 02.08.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.77 of 2021 in M.C.No.32 of 2018 on the file of the learned Family Court, Puducherry, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards interim maintenance to the respondent from the date of filing of the petition till the disposal of the main maintenance case.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent is his daughter born through his marriage with her mother and that their marriage was dissolved by an order dated 07.11.2006. According to him, the Family Court had granted him custody of the respondent, but her mother continued to retain her custody. It is his further contention that the respondent was aged about 17 years and 9 months at the time of filing of the maintenance case and had attained majority shortly thereafter. Therefore, according to him, she is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in the absence of any physical or mental abnormality. He has also disputed the income attributed to him and submitted that he is employed in Dubai, earning only 3,800 Dirhams per month, out of which he has to maintain his present family. He further contended that he had already provided substantial financial assistance to the respondent on earlier occasions and that he had also paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 08.07.2026 towards interim maintenance. On these grounds, he seeks to set aside the impugned order.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the grounds raised in the revision petition and submitted that the Family Court failed to consider the maintainability of the main maintenance proceedings and the respondent's attainment of majority. It was further contended that the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month is excessive, particularly considering the petitioner's income and financial commitments in Dubai. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for allowing the revision petition.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner, being her father, is under an obligation to provide financial support for her maintenance and welfare. The respondent was constrained to initiate the maintenance proceedings only due to the failure of the petitioner to provide adequate financial assistance for her upbringing and educational requirements. It was further submitted that the petitioner is employed in Dubai and has sufficient earning capacity, but has deliberately attempted to understate his actual income and financial status before the Family Court.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the earlier matrimonial proceedings between the petitioner and the respondent's mother and the order granting custody of the respondent to the petitioner cannot absolve him of his obligation to maintain his daughter. The respondent has been residing with her mother and has been dependent upon her for her day-to-day needs and educational expenses. It was also submitted that the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month is reasonable and necessary to meet her basic requirements. The learned counsel therefore prayed for dismissal of the revision petition and for a direction to recover the entire outstanding arrears of maintenance from the petitioner and disburse the same to the respondent.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the respondent had attained majority shortly after the institution of the maintenance proceedings and, therefore, is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is true that under Section 125(1)(c) Cr.P.C., a major child who is unable to maintain itself due to physical or mental abnormality or injury is entitled to claim maintenance, subject to the statutory conditions. However, the fact remains that the main maintenance proceedings were instituted when the respondent was still a minor. The subsequent attainment of majority does not, by itself, retrospectively invalidate the proceedings or the claim relating to the period during which she was a minor as she is a female child. The question of her entitlement to maintenance for the subsequent period requires independent consideration by the Family Court in accordance with law.

8. The petitioner has also relied upon the earlier matrimonial proceedings and the order granting him custody of the respondent. However, the mere existence of an order granting custody cannot, by itself, establish that the petitioner had actually maintained the respondent or provided for all her necessities. The actual circumstances of residence, upbringing and financial support require consideration on the basis of evidence. The petitioner has not established any sufficient ground at this stage to interfere with the interim maintenance order on this basis.

9. The contention of the petitioner that he earns only 3,800 Dirhams per month and has to maintain his present family in Dubai is also a matter requiring proper appreciation of his income, expenditure and financial commitments. The fact that the petitioner has responsibilities towards his present family cannot, by itself, absolve him of his obligations towards his daughter. The Family Court, after considering the materials placed before it, has fixed the interim maintenance at Rs.10,000/- per month. This Court finds no sufficient ground to hold that the said amount is so excessive or unreasonable as to warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction.

10. The petitioner has further contended that he had previously paid substantial amounts towards the welfare of the respondent and had recently paid Rs.5,00,000/- on 08.07.2026. Such payments, if established, shall necessarily be taken into account while calculating the outstanding maintenance arrears. However, the alleged payment does not automatically invalidate the subsisting interim maintenance order or justify setting aside the same.

11. It is pertinent to observe that interim maintenance is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the claimant during the pendency of the main proceedings. The same cannot be defeated by repeatedly raising disputed factual questions, particularly when the maintenance proceedings have remained pending for a considerable period. The petitioner has not demonstrated any patent illegality, perversity or material irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the Criminal Revision Petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the order dated 02.08.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.77 of 2021 in M.C.No.32 of 2018 on the file of the learned Family Court, Puducherry.

13. The learned Judge, Family Court, Puducherry, is directed to calculate the entire arrears of interim maintenance payable by the petitioner, after giving due credit to all amounts already paid, including the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- allegedly paid on 08.07.2026, subject to verification. Thereafter, the learned Judge shall take immediate and effective steps, in accordance with law, to recover the remaining arrears from the petitioner and disburse the recovered amount to the respondent without unnecessary delay.

14. The learned Family Court is further directed to proceed with the main maintenance proceedings in M.C.No.32 of 2018 and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, without granting unnecessary adjournments. While deciding the main case, the Family Court shall independently consider the respondent's entitlement to maintenance, particularly for the period subsequent to attaining majority, in the light of the applicable statutory provisions and the evidence available on record.

15. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are confined to the consideration of the challenge to the interim maintenance order and shall not prejudice the independent adjudication of the main maintenance case on its merits.

16. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No Costs. 03-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SHA To Family Court, Puducherry.

SHAMIM AHMED, J. SHA CRL RC No. 2253 of 2026 03-11-2026