Madras High Court
V.P.Hariprakash vs A.T.Sundarambigai on 20 April, 2022
C.M.A(MD)No.379 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:20.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.M.A(MD)No.379 of 2022
and
C.M.P(MD)No.3362 of 2022
V.P.Hariprakash ... Appellant/Respondent/Petitioner
.vs.
A.T.Sundarambigai ... Respondent/Petitioner/Respondent
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 19(1) of Family Court Act,
against the order dated 14.12.2021 passed in I.A.No.688 of 2019 in
H.M.O.P.No.1129 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court,
Madurai District.
For Appellant :Mr.N.Sathish Babu
For Respondent :Mr.D.Nallathambi
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.379 of 2022
JUDGMENT
***********
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 14.12.2021 passed by
the learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai, granting interim maintenance,
till the disposal of H.M.O.P.No.1129 of 2018.
2. The husband / the appellant herein, sought for divorce under
Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Pending the said
petition, the wife sought for interim maintenance. She prayed for
Rs.30,000/- per month towards maintenance for herself, Rs.10,000/- per
month for the child and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses.
3. This claim was resisted by the husband contending that though
he was working abroad, he has left the job. He started a Restaurant
business in Idonesiya. As he could not carry on the business, he was
forced to close it on 03.10.2019 and he is being at the mercy of his
parents. When he was required to file an affidavit of assets and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.379 of 2022
liabilities, the appellant disclosed that he is incurring monthly
expenditure of Rs.18,000/- for himself apart from incurring Rs.10,000/-
monthly expenses for his dependent parents. He also claimed that his
wife is employed in a bank and she is earning Rs.20,000/- per month.
He, however, did not produce any proof for such employment.
4. The Family Court upon consideration of the materials on record
concluded that a sum of Rs.20,000/- would be reasonable maintenance
for the mother and the child. It also directed a sum of Rs.10,000/- to be
paid towards litigation expenses.
5. We have heard Mr.N.Sathish Babu, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant and Mr.D.Nallathambi, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent.
6. While Mr.NSathish Babu, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent would vehemently contend that the appellant is jobless and is
finding difficult to maintain himself and his parents, Mr.D.Nallathambi,
learned counsel for the respondent would point out that the appellant in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.379 of 2022
his counter affidavit filed before the Family Court, stated that he is
dependent on his parents. He has however chosen to make a statement in
his affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by the Famil Court that he is
maintaining his parents.
7. Pointing out the above inconsistencies in the case of the
appellant and the fact that the appellant while advertising for the
marriage has claimed to be a person from an affluent family, the learned
counsel for the respondent would submit that the grant of Rs.20,000/-
towards monthly maintenance cannot be said to be unreasonable.
8. We have considered the rival submissions and we have perused
the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai.
9. We find ourselves unable to agree with the contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant was admittedly working
abroad. He also started business abroad and he claimed to have closed
the business. Even assuming such closure is true, the appellant cannot
deny his liability to maintain his wife and child.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.379 of 2022
10. Quantum of maintenance would also depend on the status of
the appellant. In the affidavit of assests and liabilities filed before the
Family Court, the appellant has claimed that he is spending Rs.18,000/-
for himself apart from Rs.10,000/- for his parents. If he is spending
Rs.18,000/- for himself, he has to pay Rs.20,000/- for the maintenance of
his wife and child.
11. We therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order
of the Family Court and therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails
and is accordingly dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[R.S.M.,J.] [N.S.K.,J.]
20.04.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
pm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.379 of 2022
To
1.The Judge,
Family Court,
Madurai District.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.379 of 2022
R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR , J.
pm
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)No.379 of 2022
20.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
