Madras High Court
S.Arulselvam vs B.Dhivyaa on 10 November, 2021
C.M.A.No.3175 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
C.M.A.No.3175 of 2021
and C.M.P. No.17976 of 2021
S.Arulselvam ... Appellant
vs
B.Dhivyaa ... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family
Courts Act, 1984 against the fair and decretal order dated 30.01.2018 made
in I.A. No.2827 of 2016 in O.P. No.327 of 2015 on the file of the learned VI
Additional Family Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Prabakar for
Mr.N.S.Suganthan
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of this Court was delivered by T.RAJA, J.]
This appeal has been directed against the impugned interim order
directing the appellant husband to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards interim
maintenance to the respondent wife from the date of the petition, namely,
30.01.2015 till the disposal of the main petition and also to pay a sum of
Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3175 of 2021
2.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant husband, assailing the
impugned order, pleaded that the payment of monthly maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- is highly unjustifiable, since the appellant was forced to resign
his job on 17.10.2017 on account of cruelty caused to him by the respondent
wife. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant,
soliciting our notice to page No.39 of the typed set of papers filed by the
appellant, showing relieving letter issued by the TATA Consultancy Services,
pleaded that when the appellant was relieved from the post of Team Leader
in the TATA Consultancy Services Limited, the payment of Rs.10,000/-
towards interim maintenance ordered by the VI Additional Principal Judge,
Chennai is untenable. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant further
submitted that since the appellant has resigned his job, the VI Additional
Principal Judge, Chennai, without looking into the financial position of the
appellant, has allowed the application filed by the respondent wife, holding
that the appellant has been earning less than Rs.40,000/-per month, which
is in-correct. Although the marriage of the parties was solemnised on
15.02.2013 at Arulmighu Vadapalani Murugan Temple, Vadapalani, Chennai
as per the Hindu rites and customs, the reception was held on 17.02.2013 at
Nathella Sulochanamma Kalyana Mandapam, 100 Feet Road, near
Koyambedu Bus Terminus, Chennai, to the shock and surprise of the
appellant, on the very same day night itself, the respondent made quarrel
with the appellant and abused his parents in filthy language, which has
shown her bad character and disrespect with elders. Moreover, she took a
stand that she had agreed for the marriage, only due to the compulsion of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3175 of 2021
her parents and she also shouted on the appellant saying that she would
definitely get divorce from him. As the marriage was forced one against her
will and she has not accepted for leading the matrimonial life with the
appellant and she did not allow him for consummation of marriage, due to
the continuous fight and non co-operation of the respondent wife, which
resulted in her leaving the matrimonial home, the appellant filed the divorce
petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce
on the ground of cruelty. During the pendency of the petition, the
respondent wife moved a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 stating that she was interested to
have the matrimonial life. Since both the divorce petition and the petition
seeking restitution of conjugal rights are pending for consideration, there is
no need on the part of the VI Additional Principal Judge, Chennai to order the
payment of monthly maintenance to the respondent wife. As the appellant
has resigned his job, which could be seen from the relieving letter annexed
at page No.39 of the typed set of papers filed by the appellant, the impugned
order directing the payment of maintenance is liable to be interfered with.
3.We do not find any merit either to interfere with the impugned order
passed by the learned VI Additional Principal Judge, Chennai directing the
appellant to pay only a meagre amount of Rs.10,000/- to look after the
monthly maintenance of the respondent wife or to agree with the
submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had tendered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3175 of 2021
his resignation from the service of the TATA Consultancy Services, Chennai
on 17.10.2017 and the said Company, by letter dated 09.01.2018, has
relieved the appellant from their service. It is well settled legal position that
in the matrimonial proceedings, the wife and children can seek maintenance
against the husband/father, as the case may be. It is to provide them
financial support. It is for their survival, as long as the matrimonial
proceedings are pending. Thus, they came to be called 'pendent lite
maintenance' (A reference can be had from Deepa Vs. Balaji [2017
SCC Online Mad 20701]
4.Secondly, the marriage solemnised on 15.02.2013 at Murugan
Temple, Vadapalani, Chennai, has not been terminated for the simple reason
that both the divorce petition in H.M.O.P. No.4264 of 2014 filed by the
appellant under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and the
restitution petition in F.C.O.P. No.327 of 2015 filed by the respondent under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act are pending for Trial before the VI
Additional Principal Judge, Chennai. Since the same are pending, we cannot
presume the merits of the petitions filed by the appellant and the respondent
and pre-judge in favour of the appellant. Therefore, the impugned interim
order, directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards interim
maintenance, which is only an interim arrangement, cannot be found fault
with.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3175 of 2021
5.For all these reasons, this appeal stands dismissed. Consequently,
C.M.P. No.17976 of 2021 is closed. No costs.
[T.R.,J.] [D.B.C.,J.]
10.11.2021
vga
To
1.The VI Additional Family Court,
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3175 of 2021
T.RAJA,J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.
vga
C.M.A.No.3175 of 2021
and C.M.P. No.17976 of 2021
10.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
