S.Shanthini vs G.Raja
2022 Latest Caselaw 4571 Mad

                                                                           C.M.A(MD)No.199 of 2022


                                  BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED:08.03.2022

                                                         CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
                                                    AND
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

                                               C.M.A(MD)No.199 of 2022
                     S.Shanthini                       ... Appellant/Petitioner/Respondent

                                                        .vs.

                     G.Raja                              ... Respondent/Respondent/Petitioner


                     PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 19 of Family Court Act, against
                     the fair and decreetal order dated 06.09.2021 made in I.A.No.3 of
                     2021 in H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2021 on the file of the Family Court,
                     Tiruchirappalli.
                                       For Appellant       :Mr.K.Sivabalan
                                       For Respondent      :M/s.M.Laxmi Mahendra
                                                        JUDGMENT

********* R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

AND N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Family

Court, Tiruchirappalli, in an application filed under Section 24 of the

Hindu Marriage Act, granting interim maintenance at Rs.10,000/-

for the petitioner / wife and Rs.5,000/- for the child.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.199 of 2022

2. Heard Mr.K.Sivabalan, learned counsel for the appellant and

M/s.M.Laxmi Mahendra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent.

3. Though the appellant / wife sought for Rs.50,000/- per

month as maintenance, the learned Judge taking into account the

documentary evidence that is available on record, come to the

conclusion that Rs.15,000/- (Rs.10,000/- for the wife and

Rs.5,000/- for the child), would be reasonable amount of

maintenance.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would

vehemently contend that the respondent is doing business and

having rental income of Rs.20,000/- per month apart from business

income.

5. It is seen that even in the year 2019, the parties had

agreed for divorce by mutual consent. Being an appeal against

granting of interim maintenance, we do not think that we should

dvelve deep into the evidence that was produced. On an overall

consideration, we find that the award of Rs.15,000/- is just and

reasonable.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.199 of 2022

6. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the

Family Court. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and is

accordingly dismissed. No Costs.

                                                                [R.S.M.,J.]    [N.S.K.,J.]
                                                                      08.03.2022

                     Index:Yes/No
                     Internet:Yes/No

                     pm




                     To

                     1.The Judge,
                       Family Court,
                       Tiruchirappalli.

                     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.199 of 2022

R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.

AND N.SATHISH KUMAR , J.

pm

JUDGMENT MADE IN C.M.A(MD)No.199 of 2022

08.03.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis