P.Vinothkumar v. Mythili

O R D E R This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Salem in C.M.P. No.2849 of 2024 in Un-numbered C.R.P.No..of 2024.

¶2The petitioner herein is the husband of the 1st respondent and the father of the 2nd respondent.

¶3Maintenance Case No.04 of 2020, filed on 16.10.2020 by the respondents seeking maintenance pending H.M.O.P. No. 157 of 2020 filed for divorce. After a contested hearing, the learned Judicial Magistrate, by order dated 14.08.2023, directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.5,000/- to the 2nd respondent on the 5th day of every English calendar month from the date of filing of the petition.

¶4Challenging the said order, the petitioner herein filed C.M.P. No. 2849 of 2024 in unnumbered C.R.P.No. of 2024 under Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay of 292 days in filing a revision petition against the order passed in M.C.No.04 of 2020. The said petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present revision.

¶5Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6When the matter was listed before this Court on 08.09.2025, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards arrears of maintenance within a period of three weeks and the matter was posted on

16.10.2025. On 16.10.2025, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner / husband requested the Court to refer the matter to mediation to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement between the petitioner / husband and 1st respondent / wife. Accordingly, the matter was referred to mediation, however, the mediation ended in failure.

¶7The conditional order has not been complied with and the mediation has also failed. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate awarding Rs.12,000/- as maintenance to the respondents is justifiable. Hence, this Court is not inclined interfere with the same.

¶8Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. The petitioner is directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.12,000/- to the respondents during the first week of every English calendar month. With respect to the balance of arrears, liberty is granted to the respondent / wife to work out her remedy in the manner known to law.

¶9Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

27.11.2025 Index :Yes/No AT To

¶1The learned Principal District Judge, Salem.

¶2The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sankari.

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J. AT Crl.R.C. No. 1638 of 2025 and C.M.P. No. 16749 of 2025

27.11.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.11.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Crl.R.C. No. 1638 of 2025 and C.M.P. No. 16749 of 2025 P. Vinothkumar .. Petitioner Vs 1.Mythili 2.Minor Dharunika .. Respondents Civil Revision Case is filed under Section 438 and 442 of Bharathya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to set aside the order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Salem in C.M.P. No.2849 of 2024 in Un-numbered C.R.P. No. of 2024. For Petitioner : Mr. L. Mouli For Respondents : Mr. Rangesh Kanna