Madras High Court
R.Suresh Kumar vs Sovan on 25 November, 2021
CMA No.2278 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
C.M.A.No.2278 of 2021 and CMP.No.12671 of 2021
R.Suresh Kumar ... Appellant
-vs-
Sovan ... Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family
Court Act, 1984, against the Fair and decreetal order dated
02.02.2021 passed in I.A.No.1/2019 in HMOP.No.584/2018 by the
learned Additional Principal Family Court Judge, Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Pavel
For Respondent : ...
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.2278 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by T.RAJA, J.)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the
fair and decreetal order dated 02.02.2021 passed in I.A.No.1/2019 in
HMOP.No.584/2018 by the learned Additional Principal Family Court
Judge, Coimbatore.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant challenging
the correctness of the order impugned in this appeal pleaded that
when the appellant got married with the respondent on 23.02.2002
after the demise of his first wife who died due to illness, there was a
promise made by her that she would take care of the son of the
appellant from the 1st wife and also his sickly mother. But later on,
she has failed to keep up the promise made to him. When she
started showing step motherly attitude towards the child and his
mother, her behaviour and conduct had caused immense untold
cruelty. Therefore, the appellant filed HMOP.No.584/2018 under
Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the
Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore, seeking dissolution of
the marriage on the ground of cruelty. During the pendency of the
said Original Petition, the respondent wife has moved I.A.No.1/2019
for monthly maintenance making false averments that the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.2278 of 2021
has been running an electrical shop and earning a huge income of
Rs.5,00,000/- per month, that was not even substantiated. Again,
she made yet another false allegation that the appellant has been
receiving rental income from his properties. The learned Family
Court Judge, without receiving any oral and documentary evidence
ordered the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- which is higher
and unacceptable as the appellant is a physically challenged and left
with any source of income.
3. We are unable to find any merits on the submissions of
the learned Counsel for the appellant. The reason being that when
the respondent has moved I.A.No.1/2019 before the Family Court
below, she has pleaded therein that the appellant is running an
electrical shop by which he is receiving a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- per
month. More over she also pleaded that the appellant is deriving a
rental income of Rs.5,00,000/- from his immovable properties. In
support thereof, Ex.P.1 a series of two printouts of photographs
showing his shop with Name Board M.S.Electricals was produced.
Again Ex.P.2 a Visiting Card of the appellant showing his name as
R.Suresh Kumar with Phone Numbers was also produced before the
Family Court. But curiously enough, the appellant in his counter
affidavit has not specifically denied about the closure of electrical
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.2278 of 2021
shop with sufficient evidence and also about the denial of rental
income although he has made some general denial. Therefore, there
is no any specific denial of the said averments made by the
respondent-wife by producing enough evidence to show that his shop
has been shut down or wound up. Besides, the respondent has
produced Ex.R.1 a print out showing alleged Trading, Profit and Loss
Account of M.S.Electricals, for the year ending 31st March 2019
whereas the appellant has not produced any contra evidence. Hence,
the learned Family Court, accepting her case that the appellant is
running an Electrical Shop and earning substantial sum and also
getting rental income from his immovable properties based on Ex.P.1
and Ex.P.2, ordered only a meagre sum of Rs.15,000/- per month
towards interim maintenance. Therefore, when a sum of Rs.15,000/-
has been ordered in spite of the fact that there was an allegation that
the appellant has been receiving Rs.10,00,000/- per month, we are
unable to find any merit in the present Appeal.
4. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the
same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(T.R.J.,) (D.B.C.J.,)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.2278 of 2021
tsi 15.11.2021
To
The Additional Principal Judge, Additional Principal Family Court,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.2278 of 2021
T.RAJA, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
tsi
C.M.A.No.2278/2021
25.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.2278 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
