The Madras High Court refused a wife’s plea for maintenance, saying her bedridden and financially weak husband cannot be forced to pay. The Court stressed that Section 125 CrPC is meant for support, not punishment.
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court at the Madurai Bench has refused to grant maintenance to a woman, ruling that her husband, who is a Burden bedridden senior citizen and financially struggling, cannot be burdened with more responsibilities.
Justice L. Victoria Gowri, while dismissing a revision petition filed by Menaka and her two daughters against her husband Murugan, confirmed the earlier order of the Paramakudi Magistrate Court. That order had denied their demand for ₹30,000 per month as maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Menaka had approached the court claiming that her husband, a retired employee of NTC Mills in Kamuthakudi, had received ₹15 lakh as retirement benefits and also owned immovable property. She argued that despite having enough financial means, he had refused to give her any money for her living expenses or for their younger daughter’s marriage.
However, the High Court agreed with the trial court that Murugan was suffering from paralysis, had serious financial difficulties, and was abandoned by his family. The court noted that he was 65 years old, spent about ₹5,000 per month on medical treatment, and had a monthly pension of only ₹5,000–₹10,000. He was also defending multiple civil and criminal cases, some filed by his own wife regarding property and retirement money.
“The learned Trial Court has rightly concluded that the first petitioner is able to sustain herself with the support available and the respondent, being a senior citizen with serious medical ailments, cannot be burdened with the additional responsibility of paying maintenance,” the court said.
Justice Gowri further explained that while Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a social welfare law meant to stop people from becoming helpless or destitute, it should not be used unfairly against a sick and old person.
“The entitlement of the wife is subject to proof of neglect or refusal on the part of the husband and also dependent upon his financial capacity,” the court remarked.
The judge referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) and clarified that maintenance laws are preventive, not punitive. Their main purpose is to ensure that someone who cannot maintain themselves does not fall into poverty or neglect.
The High Court also mentioned the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which gives senior citizens a legal right to be supported by their children.
“Courts cannot ignore the balance of obligations under both statutes,”
-Justice Gowri stated, adding that Murugan’s children had failed to take care of him despite his medical needs.
The court also noted that Murugan had received ₹3 lakh from his retirement benefits, and that along with his small pension, this was enough for his own basic needs but not enough to give maintenance to others.
Finally, the High Court concluded that the lower court’s findings were correct and based on proper evidence. The judge dismissed the revision petition, stating,
“No interference is warranted.”
With this, the Madras High Court made it clear that maintenance laws should not be misused as a punishment tool, especially against elderly or ailing people who are themselves dependent on limited income.
Explanatory Table – Laws and Sections Referred in the Case
| Law / Statute | Section | Purpose / Explanation | How It Applied in This Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) | Section 125 | Provides for maintenance to wives, children, and parents unable to maintain themselves. It ensures social justice and prevents destitution. | The petitioners (wife and daughters) sought ₹30,000 per month under this section. The court found that the husband’s condition (bedridden, paralyzed, and financially weak) exempted him from further liability. |
| Criminal Procedure Code | Section 397 & 401 | These sections give High Courts the power to review or revise decisions made by lower criminal courts. | The wife filed a Criminal Revision Petition under these sections to challenge the Magistrate’s order rejecting maintenance. |
| Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 | Entire Act (Referred Contextually) | Gives senior citizens the right to claim maintenance from their children and protects their welfare. | The Court observed that the husband, being a senior citizen neglected by his children, also had legal rights to be maintained by them. The court balanced this Act with Section 125 CrPC obligations. |
| Indian Constitution | Articles 15(3) & 39 (Referred in Chaturbhuj case) | Allow the State to make special provisions for women and children and ensure welfare measures for citizens. | Quoted by the Court through the Supreme Court’s interpretation to underline that Section 125 CrPC is a social welfare measure, not a punishment. |
| Case Law – Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316 | Precedent | Clarifies that maintenance is a preventive measure to stop destitution, not to penalize past neglect. | The High Court relied on this precedent to explain why a bedridden and poor husband cannot be burdened with maintenance duties. |
Case Summary
- Case Title: Menaka and Others vs. Murugan
- Case Number: Crl.R.C. (MD) No. 417 of 2024
- Court: Madras High Court, Madurai Bench
- Date of Judgment: 12 August 2025
- Bench / Judge: The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice L. Victoria Gowri
- Type of Case: Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.
- Original Case Referred: M.C. No. 3 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi
- Petitioners: 1. Menaka (Wife) 2. Nisha Sri (Daughter) 3. Hari Pooja Sri (Daughter)
- Respondent: Murugan (Husband)
- Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. P.R. Prithiviraj
- Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Karuppasamy Pandian, for Mr. S. Srinivasa Raghavan
- Relief Sought: To set aside the Magistrate’s order denying maintenance and grant ₹30,000 per month
- Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed. Maintenance denied.
- Date of Upload on HC Website: 16 September 2025
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised