S.Yugenthran v. Kamali.R

O R D E R This civil revision petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 30.04.2025 passed in I.A. No. 3 of 2024 in I.A. No. 2 1\4 of 2024 in O.P. No. 2573 of 2023 by the III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai.

¶2By the aforesaid order, the application filed by the respondent, who is the wife of the petitioner seeking for interim maintenance has been partly allowed by directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7500/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent till the disposal of I.A. No. 2 of 2024.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already been directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent in Crl.M.P. No. 1027 of 2023 in DVC No. 41 of 2023 by the I Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, and further, he would submit that the respondent, being employed, is not entitled to receive a further sum of Rs.7500/- per month as interim maintenance as directed in the impugned order.

¶4On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent is not presently employed and she is dependent on the maintenance amount for her survival. 2\4

¶5Admittedly, the petitioner is employed as a Business Analyst in HCL, a reputed software company and earns Rs.67,500/- per month. The respondent has categorically disputed that the petitioner is earning only Rs.67,500/- as claimed by him as according to her, the petitioner is earning a much higher salary from his employment. The petitioner has also not produced any proof before this Court or before the Trial Court prior to the passing of the impugned order that the respondent is employed. When it is represented by the learned counsel for the respondent before this Court that the respondent is presently unemployed and when there is no documentary evidence produced by the petitioner to prove that the respondent is employed, this Court has to believe the statement of the respondent that she is presently unemployed. The amount of Rs.7500/- per month fixed by the impugned order as interim maintenance payable to the respondent cannot be said to be unreasonable. Even though the respondent might have been awarded another sum of Rs.10,000/- as maintenance in the DVC proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioner, in all, the respondent has been awarded only Rs.17,500/- as interim maintenance, which cannot be said to be excessive or unjustified, considering the fact that 3\4 ABDUL QUDDHOSE,J. nv the petitioner is employed as Business Analyst in HCL, a reputed software company and earning Rs.67,500/- per month. The Trial Court has rightly analysed the evidence placed on record and only thereafter, has passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay Rs.7500/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent till the disposal of I.A. No. 2 of 2024.

¶6This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.

28.07.2026 nv To

¶1The III Addl. Principal Family Court, Chennai.

¶2The I Additional Mahila Court, Egmore. C.R.P. NO. 2542 of 2025 4\4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE & C.M.P. No. 14504 of 2025 Mr. S. Yugenthran ..Petitioner Vs. Mrs.R. Kamali ..Respondent Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 30.04.2025 passed in I.A. No. 3 of 2024 in O.P. NO. 2573 of 2024 by the III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai. For Petitioner :: Mr.M. Venkadesh Kumar For Respondent :: Ms.S. Cordella Kumar