The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a husband and his two sons, upholding a Family Court’s order directing them to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 21,000 to the man’s estranged wife. Justice Shamim Ahmed, presiding over the case, underscored the legal and moral obligation of a husband and children to support their wife and mother, stating that the provisions for maintenance are enacted to prevent vagrancy and provide succour to destitute women.
Case Background
The case reached the High Court after a husband and his two sons challenged an order dated March 18, 2025, by the Family Court in Madurai. The husband and wife were married on January 7, 1986.
According to the case records, the wife left the matrimonial home in 2015. Four years later, in 2019, she filed a petition before the Family Court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). In her petition, she sought a monthly maintenance of Rs. 40,000, the return of 290 sovereigns of gold jewels allegedly given as marriage gifts, and the recovery of Rs. 5,00,000.
The Family Court, after hearing both parties, partially allowed the application and awarded the wife a monthly maintenance of Rs. 21,000. This order was subsequently challenged by her husband and sons in the High Court.
Arguments of the Petitioners
Appearing for the petitioners, their counsel argued that the wife had deserted her husband and sons voluntarily in 2015 and was therefore not entitled to maintenance. He contended that the husband is over 60 years old, suffers from health issues, and has no source of income.
The counsel further submitted that the second petitioner’s income was “meager” and that he was struggling to manage his own family’s expenses and his father’s medical bills. The third petitioner, working in Bangalore, was also claimed to have an insufficient income.
The petitioners also alleged that the wife “is a lady with sufficient means, as evidenced by her ability to maintain a car for personal use and employ a driver.” They asserted that she was residing separately “without any just or reasonable cause” and stated that they were willing to take care of her.
High Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Shamim Ahmed, after considering the submissions and perusing the records, found no merit in the revision petition. The Court observed that the petitioners failed to point out any “illegality or impropriety or incorrectness” in the Family Court’s order that would warrant interference.
The judgment emphasized the fundamental duty of a man to support his wife and mother. The Court stated, “It is a well-established principle that it is a man’s legal and moral duty to maintain his mother/wife during her life time. This responsibility stems from the inherent obligation of children to care for their parents.”
The Court further elaborated on this social and familial obligation, observing, “It is the social responsibility of the husband and sons to maintain their wife and mother, as the invaluable role and care of a mother cannot be compensated, no matter how much her children pay her back in a lifetime.”
Addressing the quantum of maintenance, the High Court held that the amount of Rs. 21,000 per month “in the present days of rising prices and high cost of living, cannot be considered excessive or disproportionate.”
The Court reiterated the purpose behind Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., describing its provisions as “beneficial provisions, which are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife/mother and provide some succour to them, who are entitled to get the maintenance which cannot be denied.” The fact that the parties were related as husband, wife, and sons was not disputed.
Final Decision
Finding no illegality or abuse of the court’s process in the lower court’s order, the High Court concluded that the Family Court had “rightly passed the order.”
“Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition lacks merit and stands dismissed,” the Court ordered, directing the Family Court in Madurai to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law.
