Madras High Court
Mr.D.Sivakumar vs Mrs.Parimala on 11 June, 2021
C.M.A.Nos.615/18 & 4054/19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 03.03.2021
DATE OF DECISION : 11.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
C.M.A.Nos.615 of 2018 and 4054 of 2019
Mr.D.Sivakumar .. Appellant in CMA.No.615/18 &
.. Respondent in CMA.No.4054/19
Vs
Mrs.Parimala .. Respondent in CMA.No.615/18 &
.. Appellant in CMA.No.4054/19
Prayer in C.M.A.No.615/18 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section
19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the fair and decreetal order passed by
the learned IV Additional Family Court Judge, Chennai, in O.P.No.4364/2013,
dated 27.12.2017, with regard to ordering payment of monthly maintenance at
the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of filing of O.P.
Prayer in C.M.A.No.4054/19 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section
19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, against the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned IV Additional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.615/18 & 4054/19
Family Court Judge, Chennai, in O.P.No.4364/2013, dated 27.12.2017, insofar as
dismissing the prayer seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and against the
dismissal of the prayer seeking permanent alimony.
For Appellant/husband : Mrs.S.Thamizharasi
For Respondent/wife : Mrs.A.Arulmozhi
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.RAJA, J.)
Both husband and wife have filed separate appeals challenging the
impugned fair and decreetal order passed by the learned VI Additional Family
Court Judge, Chennai, in O.P.No.4364 of 2013, dated 27.12.2017, rejecting the
payer for divorce and directing the husband to pay Rs.25,000/- towards monthly
maintenance.
2. Mr.D.Sivakumar/husband has filed C.M.A.No.615 of 2018 questioning
the grant of monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per month.
3. Mrs.Parimala/wife has filed C.M.A.No.4054 of 2019 challenging the
dismissal of divorce petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage
Act and also against the dismissal of prayer seeking permanent alimony under
Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.615/18 & 4054/19
4. Mrs.A.Arulmozhi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/wife in
C.M.A.No.4054 of 2019, submitted that the marriage between the appellant/wife
and the respondent/husband was solemnized on 24.04.1996 at Thayar Abooy
Thirumana Mandapam, Cheyyar, as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Out of the
said wedlock, a female child by name Ojas Sivakumar was born to them on
30.05.1997, and she is now practicing legal profession as a junior lawyer. After
living together in Visakapatnam from 09.05.1996 to 26.09.1998, they are now
settled in Chennai since 2000. The respondent/husband's parents owned a house
in Velachery, Chennai, in which, half of the property i.e. 1000 sq.ft. was
purchased by the appellant/wife's father through a registered sale deed dated
10.06.2002. Now, the wife's parents are living in the ground floor and in the first
floor of the same house, the husband, child and his mother are living. It is
further alleged that the appellant/wife was subjected to physical abuse and
cruelty in various methods of neglect, ill-treatment and chiding in front of her
minor daughter and mother-in-law, and this apart, she was also subjected to
denial of conjugal rights for baseless allegation of having a deviant sexual
orientation with her doctor N.Shalini/PW2 to whom the appellant/wife made
periodical visit to get treated for the mental depression caused by domestic
violence. It is further submitted that the respondent/husband's mother was very
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.615/18 & 4054/19
abusive and insulted her in many ways and on several occasions, the
respondent/husband and his mother used to interfere in her work and tried to
prevent her from doing her job. Whenever the appellant/wife complained to her
husband about his mother undue interference and mental abuse, it was not taken
care of. Moreover, the appellant/wife was not given any financial assistance as
she started earning from 2005 onwards and therefore, the appellant/wife also
shared the expenses of her daughter.
5. It is further submitted that at one point of time, the respondent/husband
made a reckless allegation stating that she was a person of different sexual
orientation and he further accused her stating that she is having physical
relationship with her women colleagues and thereby, she was being labelled as
lesbian etc. The said allegation was denied by the appellant/wife. In view of
continuous ill-treatment, she had preferred a complaint under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act on 02.04.2012 to the Protection Officer,
Collectorate, Chennai, and thereafter, the respondent/husband was summoned
and he was advised to settle the matter amicably, but, he was not willing to
accept any of the demands made by the appellant/wife. Subsequently, in the
interest of minor child, the appellant/wife did not proceed with the case further.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.615/18 & 4054/19
When a legal notice was issued on 16.06.2012 seeking consent for mutual divorce
along with custody of minor child and right of residence, a reply notice dated
28.06.2012 was received stating that he was willing for joint custody of child with
a condition that the appellant/wife has to leave the matrimonial home. Since the
respondent/husband was not willing for amicable settlement, divorce by mutual
consent could not be materialized.
6. Continuing further, it is submitted that learned Family Court, while
considering the issue, wrongly dismissed the prayer for divorce, however, it has
granted monthly maintenance to a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of
filing petition. Learned Family Court came to the conclusion that the wife has
not stated any specific allegation which lead to the filing of petition on the
ground of cruelty, but, the fact remains that she suffered with premorbid
personality, for which, she has been taking treatment with Dr.Shalini/PW2, who
has also submitted a report under Ex.P6 and it indicates that the appellant/wife is
suffering with paranoid disorder and the said doctor also spoken about the same
in her evidence. But, in the absence of any specific finding that the cruel activity
of the respondent/husband is the cause of the appellant/wife's present problem of
premorbid personality or it must be the sole or primary cause of the said ailment,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.615/18 & 4054/19
it cannot be concluded that her ailment is due to the cruel acts of the
respondent/husband, for, in his cross-examination, the respondent/husband
specifically stated that the report filed by the Psychiatrist/PW2 is only a summary
and not the finding. However, taking note of evidence of Dr.Shalini/PW2,
learned Family Court came to the conclusion that the present ailment of the wife
is not due to the cruel acts of her husband. The said finding of the learned
Family Court cannot be sustained and it is against the material and evidence
produced by the PW2, hence, the impugned fair and decreetal order passed by
the learned Family Court is liable to be set aside.
7. Per contra, Mrs.S.Thamizharasi, learned counsel for the
respondent/husband in C.M.A.No.4054 of 2019, submitted that right from the
date of marriage the behaviour of the appellant/wife was abnormal and many
times, she was in depression for no reason, however, the respondent/husband
did not take the same seriously and in fact, most of the times, she is more
affectionate with female than male including her husband. It is further submitted
that she often used to leave to Pondicherry to meet her lady friend known to her
in the course of business. When he questioned the same, she said that she
needed psychiatric counselling, due to which, he suggested the name of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.615/18 & 4054/19
Dr.Shalini/PW2, who is having a clinic at Triplicane. After his suggestion, she
took treatment for almost 1 ½ years with PW2 and in the meantime, she
developed a sort of affection with the doctor and started visiting her even when
it was not necessary. Annoyed with her attitude, PW2 informed him that she is
going to stop giving treatment to his wife.
8. Continuing further, she would submit that apart from the above issues,
the appellant/wife was having chronic urinary infection and she has been
continuously taking treatment for the same, for which, PW2 informed him that
for any person with mental stress, this problem tend to crop up and therefore,
reducing the mental stress is the only treatment for urinary infection. Denying
the allegation that there was no physical relationship between them, it is
submitted that she has never done anything to the respondent/husband as a
dutiful wife and even the food is cooked separately by her and the
respondent/husband used to cook food for himself and daughter.
9. Stoutly denying the allegation that there was no conjugal relationship
between them, learned counsel would submit that whenever she was physcially
normal, on the advise of Psychiatric Doctor, there was a sexual relationship
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.615/18 & 4054/19
between them. Besides, terming the allegation of dubbing the appellant/wife as
lesbian as totally false, learned counsel submitted that the respondent/husband
never spoke about her character in such a cheap manner and if such allegation is
true, he would not have taken her to the psychiatric for treatment. On the other
hand, as per the advise of the doctor, the respondent/husband was giving special
care to his wife considering the treatment she was undergoing for Premorbid
personality. Therefore, the petition for divorce filed by her on the ill-advise of
her parents with false allegations is liable to be dismissed.
10. With regard to grant of interim maintenance despite the dismissal
divorce petition, learned counsel relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Chand Dhawan Vs. Jawaharlal Dhawan [(1993) 3 SCC 406]
submitted that if the petition for divorce fails, then no decree is passed, i.e., the
decree is denied to the applicant and therefore alimony cannot be granted in a
case where a decree is refused because in such a case the marriage subsists.
Therefore, in the case on hand, the grant of interim maintenance at the rate of
Rs.25,000/- per month inspite of rejecting the prayer for divorce is liable to be set
aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.615/18 & 4054/19
11. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
12. It is an admitted fact that the the appellant/wife is residing in the
ground floor with her parents, whereas the respondent/husband is residing in
the first floor of the same house with his daughter, who is now practicing as a
lawyer. When the appellant/wife has made serious allegations against her
husband alleging that she was not permitted to prepare food; that the
respondent/husband and his mother ill-treated her and not invited in any of their
functions; that the respondent/husband always ill-spoke about the character
without any basis to cast aspersions to their minor daughter aged about 17 years
and thereby minor daughter was forced to avoid the appellant/wife; that the
respondent/husband indulged in constant surveillance of the appellant/wife and
then to see all the emails and communications of her office and business
transactions without informing her; that the respondent/husband hacked the
mail ID of the appellant/wife and thereby levelled false allegation sans verifying
the contents of the same with her; and that the parents of the appellant/wife were
abused continuously, learned Family Court has rightly come to the conclusion
that when the appellant/wife and her parents were residing in the ground floor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.615/18 & 4054/19
of the same house where her husband and daughter living in the first floor;
atleast either mother or father of the appellant/wife could have come to the Court
and adduced evidence to arrive at a definite conclusion with regard to the
alleged cruelties meted out by the appellant/wife. But, there was no such steps
taken by the appellant/wife. Thus, it is difficult to believe the allegations made
by the appellant/wife against her husband and his mother, especially when they
were residing in the same house as stated supra.
13. Secondly, when she has specifically alleged that her daughter aged
about 17 years was forced to leave from her and that she was not permitted to
visit her daughter, this Court, on 27.01.2021, directed appearance of their
daughter, and accordingly, she appeared before us and deposed that she has
been visiting her mother regularly and there was a misunderstanding between
her father and mother and she refused to speak anything about the allegation
made by her mother against her father, that shows that the allegations made by
the appellant/wife against her husband are devoid of any merit, for the reason
that when she made a written allegation in para 4(g) of divorce petition dated
20.11.2013 that her daughter was forced to avoid visiting her, their daughter
deposed before us that she has been regularly visiting and she did not want to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.615/18 & 4054/19
stand any side, which shows that the allegation made in para 4(g) of the petition
is bereft of any merit.
14. Coming to other allegation that when both parties are living in the
same house, namely, appellant/wife is living in the ground floor and the
respondent/husband is living in the first floor along with her daughter who is
regularly visiting the appellant/wife, as concluded by the learned Family Court,
neither the mother nor the father of the appellant/wife nor her family members
came to the witness box to give evidence in support her allegation. Therefore,
when the appellant/wife comes to the Court seeking divorce on various
allegations of cruelty, it is not known how her own parents and daughter decline
to speak in support of her allegations, that show that her allegations are baseless.
15. Thirdly, when the appellant/wife has specifically alleged that she was
called as insane in the presence of minor daughter and also her
husband/respondent ill-spoke about her character which caused aspersion to the
minor daughter, to substantiate such allegation, she either opted to examine her
minor daughter or her parents, therefore, we are unable to accept the mere
allegation made by her when it was specifically denied by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.615/18 & 4054/19
respondent/husband.
16. Fourthly, Dr.N.Shalini/PW2 also submitted her report under Ex.P6.
Relevant portion of the same as discussed by the learned trial Court is extracted
below:-
“10.......... On perusal of Ex.P6, PW2, the doctor has
opined that the petitioner is suffering with paranoid
disorder and also spoken about the same in her evidence.
11. PREMORBID PERSONALITY: What is it?
Premorbid personality refers to patterns of thinking
interpreting, and understanding oneself relative to the
environment. Premorbid personality traits existing prior to
illness or injury. There is evidence that lifelong personality
traits persist even after traumatic brain injury.
PW2, has observed in her report under Ex.P6, about
the petitioner at page 7 under caption “PREMORBID
PERSONALITY” as follows:
Parimala had been an out going and sociable person
from childhood. She used to visit friends and mingle with
children of her neighbourhood. She had been studious, hard
working and intelligent. She raised in a Hindu family, but
has a more secular mend of mind. Although raised in a
traditional household, with a working father and a home-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.615/18 & 4054/19
maker mother, Parimala has gradually moved into a more
progressive mindset. During the years of separation from
her husband, she has learnt to fend for herself; but she still
appears inhibited, unable to assert herself with her husband
and his family of origin.”
12......... The doctor has opined about the presenting
problems of the petitioner as follows:-
PRESENTING PROBLEMS:
Mrs.Parimala first reported for consultation on 8th
DEC 2009. Her complaints at this visit were intense
feeling of sadness, disturbed sleep, inner restlessness,
increased appetite and weight gain, frequent recall of past
bitter events in the family, conflicts with her husband and
his family of origin. These symptoms have been showing up
on and off, but in the recent past, she has been increasingly
depressed and felt very neglected by her husband. To take a
break, she went to Pondicherry, to meet a lady friend, who
had been a source of solace. But her husband felt this
behavior was abnormal and they had arguments over this.
This precipitated another quarrel following which the client
had decided to take a psychiatric consultation.”
As could be seen from the report/Ex.P6 submitted by the PW2, it is clear that no
oral or documentary evidence has been produced by the appellant/wife to show
that her husband/respondent has caused any cruelty to her. Hence, we are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.615/18 & 4054/19
unable to disagree with the findings of the learned Family Court refusing to
grant divorce. Even the other allegation that the respondent/husband indulged
in constant surveillance of her device, mail communications without her
knowledge also could not be established, for, to substantiate the said allegation,
she did not produce any evidence particularly any electronic evidence.
Moreover, when the appellant/wife made an allegation that her
husband/respondent had hacked her mail ID, the same was not established
through electronic evidence or through the persons working in her business
circles, hence, the said allegation cannot be sustained.
17. This apart, Ex.R2/income tax filed by the appellant/wife shows that the
company by name Lexworkz Data Services Private Limited was run by the
appellant/wife and in the said Company, she was working as Managing
Director, and the respondent/husband and the appellant's father were working
as Directors. When the company was running with three Directors including her
husband and her father, the allegation of hacking her emails and other electronic
devices has not been established by adducing any iota of evidence. Therefore,
looking at the case of the appellant/wife, when her own daughter and father and
mother and her colleagues working in her concern have not come forward to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.615/18 & 4054/19
depose in her favour to say that the respondent/husband has caused mental
cruelty, we are not inclined to accept the case of the appellant/wife as no case has
been made out to invoke Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act to dissolve
the marriage.
18. Coming to the direction to pay Rs.25,000/- towards monthly
maintenance to the appellant/wife, that too, from the date of petition i.e.
21.11.2013, in our considered view, the same does not sound good. In this
context, it is relevant to refer to Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is
extracted hereunder:-
25. PERMANENT ALIMONY AND
MAINTENANCE--
(1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act
may, at the time of passing- any decree or at any time
subsequent thereto, on application made to it for purpose by
either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that
the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his
maintenance and support such cross sum or such monthly
or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the
applicant as, having regard to the respondent's own income
and other property, if any, the income and other property of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.615/18 & 4054/19
the applicant, the conduct of the parties and other
circumstances of the case, it may seem to the court to be
just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by
a charge on the immovable property of the respondent.
(2) If the court is satisfied that there is a change in
the circumstances of either party at any time after it has
made an order under sub-section (1), it may at the instance
of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in
such manner as the court may deem just.
(3) If the court is satisfied that the party in whose
favour an order has been made under this section has
remarried or, if such party is the wife, that she has not
remained chaste, or, if such party is the husband, that he
has had sexual intercourse with any woman outside
wedlock, it may at the instance of the other party vary,
modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the
court may deem just.
Permanent alimony and maintenance are contemplated if the Court is satisfied
that there is a just and reasonable cause for payment of permanent alimony and
maintenance. However, an order for permanent alimony or maintenance in
favour of the wife or the husband could only be made when a decree is passed
granting any substantive relief and not where the main petition itself is dismissed
or withdrawn. In the present case, since the learned Family Court has rejected
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.615/18 & 4054/19
the prayer for divorce, grating of relief for permanent alimony cannot hold good.
19. It is well settled legal position that permanent alimony or maintenance
to wife under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be granted if the
petition for divorce between the parties is dismissed (A reference can be had
from a decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Badri Prasad Vs. Smt. Urmila
Mahobiya [AIR 2001 Madhya Pradesh 106])
20. Similarly, our High Court in Ranganatham Vs. Shyamala [AIR 1990
Madras 1], placing reliance on a decision of the Delhi High Court in Smt.
Sushma Vs. Satish Chandra [AIR 1984 Delhi 1] holding that alimony cannot be
granted in a case where a decree for divorce or other decree is refused as
marriage in such a case subsists, held thus:-
“5........................For the discussions already made, I
have no hesitation in holding that the existence of any of
the decrees referred to in Ss. 9 to 13 of the Act is a
condition precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction
under S.25(1) of the Act, and the granting the ancillary
relief for permanent alimony and maintenance and
not when the main petition was dismissed and no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.615/18 & 4054/19
substantial relief was granted under Ss. 9 to 14 of the
Act. Since there was no 'passing of decree' as
contemplated under S. 25(1) of the Act, the jurisdiction
to pass an order for maintenance under that section
does not arise.”
21. Besides, in a similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chand
Dhawan's case (cited supra) by referring to various decisions of the High Courts
held thus:-
7. A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in
Kadia Harilal Purshottam v. Kadia Lilavati Gokaldas
AIR [1961] Gujarat 202; ruled that the words "at the time of
passing any decree or any time subsequent thereto" occurring
in section 25 meant passing of any decrees of the kind referred
to in the earlier provisions of the Act and not at the time of
dismissing the petition for any relief provided in those
sections, or any time subsequent thereto. It was viewed that
the expression "any decree" did not include an order of
dismissal and that the passing of an order of dismissal of the
petition could not be regarded as the passing of decree within
the meaning of section 25. On that view a petition for
permanent alimony preferred by the wife was dismissed when
the petition of the husband for restitution of conjugal rights
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.615/18 & 4054/19
had been dismissed.
8. In Shantaram Gopalshet Narkar v. Hirabai,
AIR [1962] Bombay 27 Vol. 49, a learned Single Judge of the
Bombay High Court took the view that in order to confer
jurisdiction upon the court to proceed under section 25(1)
there must be a decree as contemplated under the Hindu
Marriage Act and one of the decrees can be under section
10(1) (B). And when the petition was allowed to be
withdrawn, there was no decree passed in favour of the
husband, and if there was no decree, the court had no
jurisdiction to pass any order granting permanent alimony to
the wife under section 25(1).
9. In Minarani Majumdar v. Dasarath Majumdar
AIR [1963] Calcutta 428 Vol. 50, a Division Bench of the
Calcutta High Court ruled that an order dismissing a petition
by the husband for divorce under section 13 is not a decree
within the meaning of section 25 and as such when no
substantive relief is granted under sections 9 to 14, there is no
passing of a decree as contemplated by section 25 and hence no
jurisdiction to make an order for maintenance under the said
section. Harilal's case (supra) of the Gujarat High Court was
noticed and relied upon.
10. A learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.615/18 & 4054/19
in Shantaram Dinkar Karnik v. Malti Shantaram Karnik, AIR
[1964] Bombay 83 - vol. 51 relying on the earlier decision of
that court in Shantaram Gopalshet's case (supra) and kadia
Hiralal's case (supra) reaffirmed the view that the expression
"passing of any decree" only referred to passing of any decrees
provided for in section 9 to 13 of the Act, even though
technically speaking dismissal of a suit or a petition may be
called a decree but not for the purpose of section 25 conferring
jurisdiction on the Matrimonial Court to grant permanent
alimony.
11. A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in
Akasam Chinna Babu v. Akasam Parbati & Another AIR
[1967] Orissa 163 - Vol. 54 denied the relief of permanent
alimony when the petition for divorce of the husband had been
dismissed. The views of the Bombay High Court and the
Gujarat High Court above referred to were taken in aid to get
to that view.
12. A three-Judge full bench of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in Durga as v. Smt. Tara Rani,AIR (1971) Punjab and
Haryana 141 - Vol. 58, in a different context, while determining the
question whether a party to a decree or divorce could apply for
maintenance under sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Act after
which decree has been granted, ruled that the proceedings for grant
of permanent alimony were incidental to the main proceeding and as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.615/18 & 4054/19
such an application for alimony could be made even after the grant of
the decree for divorce.
13. A learned Single Judge of that Court, however, in
Gurcharan Kaur v. Ram chand AIR 1979 Punjab and Haryana 206
Vol. 66 even while relying, on the full bench decision afore- referred
went on to deny permanent alimony to the wife whose claim for
decree of Nullity of Marriage stood dismissed and on that basis the
petition for alimony was held not maintainable.
14. In Darshan Singh vs. Mst. Daso AIR 1980 Rajasthan
102 - Vol. 67 a learned single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court
made a distinction between the expression "passing any decree"
occurring in section 25 and the expression decree made" under
section 28. He viewed that the former expression meant granting
any relief of the nature stated in sections 9 to 13 while the later
meant granting or refusing the relief. In other words, it meant that
passing of any decree as to mean granting any relief, and the making
of any decree was to mean granting or refusing any relief.
15. A Division Bench of the Delhi High court too in Smt.
Sushma v. Shri Satish Chander AIR 1984 Delhi 1 Vol. 71 taking
stock of the above-referred to views of the Rajasthan, Orissa.
Bombay, Calcutta and Gujarat High Courts affirmedly took the view
that the passing of the decree in section 25 meant the passing of a
decree of divorce, Nullity, Restitution of Conjugal Rights or Judicial
Separation and not the passing of a decree dismissing the petition. It
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.615/18 & 4054/19
was further held that if the petition fails then no decree is passed, i.e.,
the decree is denied to the applicant and therefore alimony cannot be
granted in a case where a decree is refused because in such a case the
marriage subsists. The word "decree" in matrimonial cases was held
to have been used in a special sense different from that in which it is
used in the Civil Procedure Code.
23................... In other words without the marital
status being affected or disrupted by the matrimonial court
under the Hindu Marriage Act the claim of permanent
alimony was not to be valid as ancilliary or incidental to
such affectation or disruption....................”
From the aforesaid various decisions, it is crystal clear that when a petition for
divorce is dismissed, alimony or maintenance cannot be granted where a decree
for divorce is refused, for, in such a case, approach of any Court granting
alimony or maintenance to the wife, after refusing divorce, will encourage bad
thoughts and negativity, that will heavily impact even on the ideal family,
therefore, the Court of law shall not allow any such possibility. The Courts are
established to promote peace and harmony, hence, the Courts shall unite the
separated couple but not to separate them from the matrimonial bond. In the
case on hand, although learned Family Court has rightly refused to grant the
relief of divorce under Section13(1)(ia) of the Act, it has erred in granting the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.615/18 & 4054/19
relief of maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month.
22. Thus, for the reasons stated above, impugned fair and decreetal order
passed by the learned Family Court in respect of granting maintenance is set
aside, however, the order of refusing to grant divorce is confirmed.
Consequently, C.M.A.No.615 of 2018 filed by the husband is allowed and
C.M.A.No.4054 of 2019 filed by the wife is dismissed. It is seen from the docket
sheet that this Court, vide order dated 02.04.2018, while granting the interim
stay, directed the husband to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards arrears of
maintenance to the credit of O.P.No.4364 of 2013 on the file of IV Additional
Family Court, Chennai. Mrs.A.Arulmozhi, learned counsel for the wife, stated
that the wife has already withdrawn the said amount. Therefore, needless to
state that the said amount need not be collected back by the husband. No Costs.
Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(T.R., J.) (G.C.S., J.)
11.06.2021
rkm
Index:yes
Speaking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.615/18 & 4054/19
T.RAJA, J.
and
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
rkm
To
IV Additional Family Court Judge,
Chennai.
C.M.A.Nos.615 of 2018
and 4054 of 2019
11.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
