Madras High Court
Sushil Jain vs Gunjan Jain on 11 January, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 11.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
C.M.A. No.1723 of 2019 and
C.M.P. No.5404 of 2019
Sushil Jain ... Appellant
-vs-
1.Gunjan Jain
2.Nayan S.Talesara (Minor)
rep. by his mother (natural Guardian) ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of Family Court
Act, 1984 to set aside the fair and decretal order passed by the V Additional
Principal Family Court, Chennai in I.A. No.3633 of 2017 in O.P. No.778 of
2009 dated 09.11.2018 and allow the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
For Appellant : Ms.Geeta Ramaseshan
For Respondents : Ms.Shah and Shah
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been directed against the impugned fair and decretal
order dated 09.11.2018 passed by the V Additional Principal Family Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Chennai in I.A. No.3633 of 2017 in O.P. No.778 of 2009 granting interim
maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to the first respondent wife and Rs.10,000/- to
the second respondent son from the date of petition namely,15.12.2017.
2.Ms.Geetha Ramaseshan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
pleaded that when the respondents sought for payment of interim
maintenance of Rs.2,50,000/- per month on the ground that the appellant is
a multimillionaire owning Pallacious Bungalow in the garden city of
Bangalore and having 2 – 3 high model cars and one of which is
MERCEDES BENZ that was driven by a Driver, the V Additional Principal
Family Court, Chennai directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/-
per month to the first respondent wife and Rs.10,000/- per month to the
second respondent second son, which is unacceptable and unjustified.
Moreover, when the first respondent is also employed, the employment
status of the first respondent has been completely overlooked. Therefore,
the order directing the appellant to pay the interim maintenance to the
respondents namely, wife and second son is liable to be interfered with.
3.Opposing the above prayer, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submitted that when both the appellant and the first respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
are living separately for a long time, it is a moral and legal obligation on the
part of the appellant to maintain his wife and children. No doubt, the
appellant is taking care and custody of the first son. Since the first
respondent has been assisting her father, the same cannot be construed that
she is employed.
4.When the first respondent pleaded that the appellant is a
multimillionaire, owning Pallacious Bungalow in the garden city of
Bangalore and having 2 – 3 high model cars and one of which is
MERCEDES BENZ that was driven by a Driver, it has been categorically
admitted by the appellant in para 9 of the counter affidavit filed before the V
Additional Family Court, Chennai as under:
'9.I submit that the averments in para 12, 13, 14 and 15 are a
figment of her imagination. The petitioner seems to forget that
as per the present status of the litigation between the petitioner
and respondent, the petitioner is still very much the legally
wedded wife of the respondent and no one under the Sun has
prevented her from accepting her position as wife of
respondent and re-uniting with him, to enjoy the 'palatial
bungalow in the garden city of Bangalore' and move about in
'MARCEDES BENZ' duly chauffeured and enjoy the services of
cook, servants & maids.'
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5.Since the appellant is not able to change the factum of his status as
affluent, we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned fair
and decreal order. Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
6.Learned counsel appearing for both the parties made a joint request
to give a direction to the V Additional Family Court, Chennai to dispose of
the matter at an early date.
7.Since both the parties are jointly seeking divorce, placing on record
the joint request of both the parties and keeping in mind that the matter is
pending from 2009 onwards, this Court hereby directs the V Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai to dispose of the matter within three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on merits and in
accordance with law. Consequently, C.M.P. No.5404 of 2019 is closed. No
costs.
(TRJ) (GCSJ)
11.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
vga
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
To
1.The V Additional Principal Family Court,
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.RAJA, J.
and
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN,J.
vga
C.M.A. No.1723 of 2019 and
C.M.P. No.5404 of 2019
11.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
