Muniyappan vs Minor Adithya

CRL RC No. 2455 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL RC No. 2455 of 2026
and
CRL MP No.20761 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012210692026}
Muniyappan
S/o Murugesan,
No.2/196, Maniyakarar Street,
Indiyampalayam, Arasur Po,
Sathyamangalam Taluk,
Erode.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Minor Adithya
S/o Muniyappan,
Rep by his Mother/Natural Guardian
V.Karthika,
No.6/275-B-1, Ganesh Nagar,
Pattanam, Coimbatore.
2. V.Karthika
W/o Muniyappan,
No.6/275-B-1, Ganesh Nagar,
Pattanam, Coimbatore.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: To set aside the order dt.11.08.2026 in MP.No.1 of 2025 in MC.No.7 of
2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sulur, Coimbatore or in the
alternative and without prejudice, be pleased to substantially modify and reduce
the quantum of maintenance awarded and pass any other or further order as this
Honble Court.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. M.Rajasekaran
__________
Page1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:34 pm )

CRL RC No. 2455 of 2026
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order dated
11.08.2026 passed in M.P.No.1 of 2025 in M.C.No.7 of 2025 on the file of the
Learned Judicial Magistrate, Sulur, Coimbatore, whereby the learned Magistrate
partly allowed the petition filed by the respondents herein under Section 144(2)
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, granting interim maintenance
of Rs.10,000/- per month to the second respondent/wife and Rs.10,000/- per
month to the first respondent/minor child, totalling Rs.20,000/- per month,
together with a one-time payment of Rs.15,000/- towards litigation and
incidental expenses.
2.The petitioner herein is the husband of the second respondent and the
father, as claimed in the maintenance proceedings, of the first respondent/minor
child. The respondents herein filed M.C.No.7 of 2025 before the Learned
Judicial Magistrate, Sulur, seeking maintenance. Pending disposal of the main
maintenance proceedings, they filed M.P.No.1 of 2025 under Section 144(2) of
the BNSS, seeking interim maintenance of Rs.75,000/- per month and a sum of
Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses. The learned Magistrate, after
considering the materials placed before the Court, partly allowed the application
by order dated 11.08.2026, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-
per month to the second respondent/wife and Rs.10,000/- per month to the first
respondent/minor child. The learned Magistrate further directed the petitioner to
__________
Page2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:34 pm )

CRL RC No. 2455 of 2026
pay a one-time sum of Rs.15,000/- towards litigation and incidental expenses. It
was also directed that the monthly maintenance amount shall be payable from
the date of filing of the maintenance petition and that the accumulated arrears
shall be paid within a period of three months.
3.Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present
Criminal Revision Case, contending that the learned Magistrate failed to
properly appreciate his actual financial capacity, existing financial
commitments and the materials available on record. The principal contention of
the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate himself has recorded that his take-
home salary is approximately Rs.94,000/- per month and that he is burdened
with monthly EMI commitments of approximately Rs.35,000/-, apart from
medical and other necessary expenses. According to the petitioner, the learned
Magistrate failed to consider the actual disposable income available to him
before fixing the monthly maintenance at Rs.20,000/-.
4.The petitioner has further contended that the respondents had alleged
that he was earning additional income through rental properties, business
activities and real-estate dealings. However, according to the petitioner, the
learned Magistrate had specifically noticed that the respondents had not
produced adequate documentary evidence to substantiate the alleged additional
sources of income. Therefore, it is contended that the learned Magistrate ought
__________
Page3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:34 pm )

CRL RC No. 2455 of 2026
not to have attributed any such additional income to the petitioner while
determining the quantum of interim maintenance.
5.The petitioner has also challenged the direction requiring him to pay the
interim maintenance from the date of filing of the maintenance petition and to
clear the accumulated arrears within three months. According to him, the said
direction is onerous and causes undue financial hardship, particularly when the
main maintenance proceedings in M.C.No.7 of 2025 are still pending and the
respective rights and liabilities of the parties have not yet been finally
adjudicated.
6.Another important ground raised by the petitioner relates to the
biological paternity of the first respondent/minor child. According to the
petitioner, his marriage with the second respondent was solemnised on
17.03.2021 and there was no physical or conjugal access between them during
the relevant period of conception. In this regard, the petitioner had filed
M.P.No.2 of 2025 in M.C.No.7 of 2025 under Section 116 of the Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, seeking a scientific DNA examination of himself
and the minor child to determine biological paternity. However, the said
application was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate by order dated
19.05.2026. The petitioner contends that the learned Magistrate failed to
properly consider this specific contention while passing the impugned order
__________
Page4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:34 pm )

CRL RC No. 2455 of 2026
granting interim maintenance.
7.This Court has carefully considered the grounds raised by the petitioner
and perused the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. The principal
question that arises for consideration in the present Criminal Revision Case is
whether the order granting interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the
wife and minor child, together with litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-, warrants
interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
8.At the outset, it is relevant to note that the proceedings before the
learned Magistrate arise out of a claim for maintenance by the wife and minor
child. The object of the provisions relating to maintenance is to prevent
destitution and vagrancy and to ensure that persons who are unable to maintain
themselves are provided with reasonable financial support by the person legally
bound to maintain them. The grant of interim maintenance is intended to
provide immediate financial assistance during the pendency of the main
proceedings and cannot be treated as a final determination of the rights and
liabilities of the parties.
9.In the present case, the petitioner himself admits that his take-home
salary is approximately Rs.94,000/- per month. He also relies upon his monthly
EMI commitments of approximately Rs.35,000/- and other medical and
__________
Page5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:34 pm )

CRL RC No. 2455 of 2026
personal expenses. While determining the quantum of maintenance, the
financial commitments of the husband are certainly relevant considerations.
However, the mere existence of loan commitments or other financial liabilities
cannot, by itself, absolve a husband of his statutory obligation to maintain his
wife and minor child, subject to the entitlement of the claimants being
established in accordance with law. The obligation to maintain one's wife and
minor child cannot be placed below voluntarily undertaken financial
commitments without examining the nature and necessity of such commitments.
10.It is also relevant to note that the respondents had initially claimed
interim maintenance of Rs.75,000/- per month. However, the learned
Magistrate, upon considering the materials available before the Court and the
financial circumstances projected by both sides, has awarded only Rs.10,000/-
per month to the second respondent/wife and Rs.10,000/- per month to the first
respondent/minor child. The total amount awarded is Rs.20,000/- per month,
which is substantially lower than the amount originally claimed by the
respondents. The petitioner has not demonstrated any patent illegality or
material irregularity in the manner in which the learned Magistrate arrived at the
said quantum, warranting interference by this Court.
11.The contention that the respondents have not produced sufficient
documentary evidence to establish the alleged rental income, business income
__________
Page6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:34 pm )

CRL RC No. 2455 of 2026
and income from real-estate dealings also requires consideration. However, the
determination of interim maintenance cannot always be made solely on the
basis of documentary proof of every alleged source of income. The Court is
entitled to consider the admitted income, employment particulars, financial
circumstances and other relevant materials available on record. In the present
case, even according to the petitioner, his monthly take-home salary is
approximately Rs.94,000/-. Therefore, irrespective of the dispute regarding the
alleged additional sources of income, the learned Magistrate had material
regarding the petitioner's employment income while determining the interim
maintenance.
12.As regards the direction to pay maintenance from the date of filing of
the maintenance petition, it is to be noted that the determination of the date from
which maintenance is payable is a matter within the discretion of the Court, to
be exercised judicially after considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
The fact that the main maintenance proceedings are pending cannot, by itself, be
a ground to deny interim maintenance or to postpone the commencement of
payment until the final disposal of the proceedings. Interim maintenance is
intended to provide immediate financial assistance during the pendency of the
proceedings. Therefore, the direction to pay the interim maintenance from the
date of filing of the petition does not, by itself, disclose any illegality warranting
interference.
__________
Page7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:34 pm )

CRL RC No. 2455 of 2026
13.The petitioner has also raised a specific contention regarding the
biological paternity of the first respondent/minor child and has relied upon the
dismissal of M.P.No.2 of 2025, which was filed seeking DNA examination. In
this regard, it is relevant to note that the dismissal of the application seeking
DNA examination and the question of entitlement to interim maintenance are
distinct matters requiring consideration on their respective legal and factual
foundations. The petitioner cannot, merely on the basis of an allegation
disputing biological paternity, automatically avoid the obligation arising from
the proceedings concerning the maintenance of the minor child. The question of
paternity, if raised and legally maintainable, has to be considered in accordance
with the applicable law and the materials placed before the competent Court.
The present revision, which challenges the order granting interim maintenance,
cannot be converted into an adjudication of the biological paternity of the minor
child.
14.It is further relevant to note that the main maintenance proceedings in
M.C.No.7 of 2025 are still pending before the learned Magistrate. The
impugned order is only an interim arrangement made to ensure financial support
to the respondents during the pendency of those proceedings. The petitioner will
have sufficient opportunity to place all relevant materials relating to his income,
existing liabilities, medical expenses and other financial circumstances before
the learned Magistrate during the course of the main proceedings. The learned
__________
Page8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:34 pm )

CRL RC No. 2455 of 2026
Magistrate is also required to consider the materials placed by both parties while
finally adjudicating the maintenance claim. Therefore, the interim order cannot
be treated as a final determination of the petitioner's liability.
15.It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is not
equivalent to that of an appellate Court. Unless the impugned order suffers from
patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or material irregularity, this
Court would not ordinarily interfere with an order passed by the Court below
after considering the materials available on record. In the present case, the
petitioner has raised grounds relating to his financial commitments, alleged
absence of additional income, retrospective payment of maintenance and the
disputed paternity of the minor child. However, these grounds, in the
circumstances of the present case, do not establish any patent illegality or
perversity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
16.This Court is of the considered view that the learned Magistrate has
taken into account the petitioner's admitted monthly income and has awarded a
comparatively reasonable amount towards interim maintenance to the wife and
minor child, pending disposal of the main proceedings. The amount awarded is
intended to provide immediate financial support to the respondents and cannot
be considered excessive merely because the petitioner has other financial
commitments. The direction to pay a one-time sum of Rs.15,000/- towards
__________
Page9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:34 pm )

CRL RC No. 2455 of 2026
litigation and incidental expenses also does not disclose any apparent illegality
warranting interference.
17.Consequently, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with
the impugned order dated 11.08.2026 passed in M.P.No.1 of 2025 in M.C.No.7
of 2025 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Sulur, Coimbatore.
18.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed . The order
passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Sulur, Coimbatore, granting interim
maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the second respondent/wife and
Rs.10,000/- per month to the first respondent/minor child, together with a one-
time sum of Rs.15,000/- towards litigation and incidental expenses, stands
confirmed . Connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
19.It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present
Criminal Revision Case are confined to the challenge against the interim
maintenance order and shall not influence the learned Judicial Magistrate while
finally adjudicating the main maintenance proceedings in M.C.No.7 of 2025.
The learned Judicial Magistrate shall independently consider the oral and
documentary evidence and all the contentions raised by both parties and dispose
of the main maintenance proceedings on their own merits and in accordance
__________
Page10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:34 pm )

CRL RC No. 2455 of 2026
with law.
20.Let a copy of this order be sent by the Registry of this Court to the
Learned Judicial Magistrate, Sulur, Coimbatore, for necessary compliance and
information.
30-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SHA
To
The Judicial Magistrate, Sulur, Coimbatore.
__________
Page11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:34 pm )

CRL RC No. 2455 of 2026
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
SHA
CRL RC No. 2455 of 2026
30-10-2026
__________
Page12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:34 pm )