Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE P.K.Prasad S/o. Kedarinath, Currently residing at No.49, GLR Mansion, Flat No.103, 2nd Floor, Sriram Temple Street, New Thippasundara, Bengaluru - 560 075. ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. Sarumathi W/o.P.K.Prasad, No.20 South Beach, Avenue, MRC Nagar, R.A.Puram, Chennai - 600 028.
2. Diksha
Minor, rep by her mother Sarumathi, W/o.P.K.Prasad, No.20 South Beach, Avenue, MRC Nagar, R.A.Puram, Chennai - 600 028. ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- This CRP has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 13-02-2025 passed by the VII Addl.Family Court, Chennai in IA.No.1/2024 in OP.No.2977/2022. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Makesh For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Sivalingam
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the VII Additional Family Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.P.No.2977 of 2022. In the aforesaid order, the Court below has fixed the interim maintenance payable by the petitioner to the respondents at Page1 of 6 Rs.30,000/- per month. The Court below has also directed the petitioner to pay the arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month to the respondents within a period of two months from the date of the impugned order.
2. The following are the undisputed facts:-
(a) The petitioner is earning a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- per month.
(b) The first respondent is also employed. According to her, she is earning only Rs.58,000/-, which is disputed by the petitioner.
(c) The petitioner and the first respondent have begotten a girl child, who is presently aged around 8 years and studying in a school at Chennai.
3. The petitioner claims that he has got various liabilities/debts, and
therefore, he is not in a position to pay Rs.30,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondents as directed under the impugned order. The petitioner had also filed certain documents before the Family Court in support of his contention, which was considered by the Family Court, and only thereafter, the Family Court has passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.30,000/- per month to the respondents and also directed him to pay arrears of maintenance within a specified time limit. The learned counsel for the petitioner also reiterated the very same submissions that were made by the petitioner before the Family Court in this CRP as well. Page2 of 6
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would
submit that the first respondent is presently taking care of the educational expenses of her daughter as well as other expenses. He would also submit that presently, the petitioner is earning Rs.1,85,000/- per month, and therefore, he cannot question the meagre sum of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Family Court towards interim maintenance.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner
has complied with the conditional order passed by this Court on 24.04.2025 in this CRP. A memo dated 04.06.2025 to that effect has also been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court. The said fact is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, can interfere with
the impugned order only under exceptional circumstances as it is not a statutory appeal filed by the petitioner. The Court below has fixed the interim maintenance after giving due consideration to the documents placed on record by the petitioner as well as the respondents. The amount fixed by the Family Court towards interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month cannot be considered to be excessive as claimed by the petitioner, and it cannot be unreasonable considering the fact that the petitioner is earning a sum of Page3 of 6
Rs.1,85,000/- per month. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner may contend that at the time of filing the application seeking interim maintenance, the petitioner was not earning Rs.1,85,000/-, but, admittedly, when the impugned order was passed, the petitioner was earning Rs.1,85,000/- as recorded in the impugned order. The child born out of the wedlock of the petitioner and the first respondent has to be provided with proper education, clothing and proper accommodation. Therefore, the question of interfering with the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards interim maintenance to the respondents cannot be held to be unjustified as claimed by this petitioner in this CRP.
7. As observed earlier, only in exceptional circumstances, in a revision petition, this Court can interfere with the impugned order passed by the Family Court. This petition does not fall under the category of “exceptional
circumstances”. The petitioner has already complied with the conditional order
passed by this Court on 24.04.2025 by making necessary payment as directed by this Court, and the memo dated 04.06.2025 to that effect has also been filed by the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner has complied with the conditional
order passed by this Court on 24.04.2025 is also not disputed by the learned
counsel for the respondents. Therefore, the payment made by the petitioner to the respondents as per the conditional order dated 24.04.2025 passed by this Court has to be adjusted from and out of the payment payable by the petitioner Page4 of 6 to the respondents as directed by the Family Court under the impugned order.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere with
the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the VII Additional Family Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.P.No.2977 of 2022 is hereby confirmed by this Court. This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed by directing the petitioner to pay the balance amount payable to the respondents as per the impugned order after adjusting the payment already made by virtue of the conditional order dated 24.04.2025 passed by this Court in this CRP. The petitioner shall also pay the interim maintenance to the respondents at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month without committing any default. No Costs. C.M.P.No.9921 of 2025 is closed.
15-06-2026 Index: Yes/No RKM To VII Additional Family Court, Chennai. Page5 of 6
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
RKM 15-06-2026 Page6 of 6