Dhushyanthi vs Jayavel
2021 Latest Caselaw 18249 Mad

                                                                         C.R.P.(NPD)No.1489 of 2021

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                           DATED: 06.09.2021
                                                   CORAM:
                  THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
                                      C.R.P.(NPD)No.1489 of 2021
                                       (Through Video Conference)

            Dhushyanthi                                                         .. Petitioner
                                                    Versus

            Jayavel                                                             .. Respondent

            PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
            India pleased to call for the entire records connected with the order dated
            15.11.2017 in H.M.O.P No.2508 of 2013 passed by the learned VI Additional
            Family Judge, Chennai and set aside the same so far as the said order has denied
            permanent alimony to the petitioner is illegal and direct the respondent to pay the
            petitioner permanent alimony in accordance with law.
                                 For Petitioner     : Mr.M. Radhakrishnan
                                 For Respondent     : Mr.Pandiyan
                                                      For Mr.T.Padmanabhan

                                                    ******

O RD E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to call for the records connected with

H.M.O.P.No.2508 of 2013 and to set aside the order dated 15.11.2017 passed by

the VI Additional Family Court, Chennai which denied permanent alimony to

the petitioner.

________ http://www.judis.nic.in

C.R.P.(NPD)No.1489 of 2021

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the husband/

respondent filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu

Marriage Act. During the pendency of the H.M.O.P.No.2508 of 2013,

I.A.No.300 of 2015 was filed seeking interim maintenance.

3. The learned VI Additional Family Judge, Chennai directed the

respondent to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner / wife as

interim maintenance and Rs.3,000/- per month to the minor child. Since the

respondent has not paid the interim maintenance ordered by the Court, the main

divorce petition came to be dismissed on 15.11.2017. The petitioner filed a

memo on 13.12.2017 seeking a direction to pass order of permanent alimony in

H.M.O.P.No.2508 of 2013. No order was passed in the same and in such

circumstances, the present petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order

dated 15.11.2011 and for a direction ordering permanent alimony.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that grant of permanent

alimony is must and necessary for maintaining the petitioner and her minor child.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed this petition.

6. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

7. Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with permanent alimony

and maintenance. It provides for ordering permanent alimony / maintenance at

________ http://www.judis.nic.in

C.R.P.(NPD)No.1489 of 2021

the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on an

application made to it for the 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 gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a

term not exceeding the life of the applicant.

8. However, in the judgment made in Badri Prasad vs. Smt.Urmila

Mahobiya reported in AIR (2001) MP 106, it has been held that the relief of

permanent alimony cannot be given where the main petition for relief under the

Act such as divorce, judicial separation, etc., is dismissed or withdrawn.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment made in

Chandrika vs. M.Vijayakumar reported in 1996 (2) MLJ 439, where the

proposition was laid that maintenance/ permanent alimony can be ordered even

without any application. There is no realm over the fact that maintenance /

permanent alimony can be ordered at the time of conclusion of matrimonial

proceedings, even without an application. In the case relied upon by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, the decree of divorce was granted. However, as

decided in the judgment reported in AIR (2001) MP 106 (stated supra), when

divorce proceedings is dismissed, permanent alimony cannot be granted.

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.,

________ http://www.judis.nic.in

C.R.P.(NPD)No.1489 of 2021

sts

10. In this case also, divorce petition was dismissed. Therefore, this Court

finds that the claim of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the

learned VI Additional Family Judge, Chennai dated 15.112017 is to be set aside

and a direction to the learned VI Additional Family Judge, Chennai to be issued

for ordering permanent alimony cannot be entertained. In this view of the matter,

the present Civil Revision Petition stands Dismissed. No costs.

06.09.2021

Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order sts/nti

To:

The VI Additional Family Judge, Chennai.

Order made in C.R.P.(NPD)No.1489 of 2021

________ http://www.judis.nic.in