Madras High Court
G.Dhamodharan … vs C.Preethika on 9 March, 2023
C.M.A.No. 608 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
C.M.A.No. 608 of 2023
G.Dhamodharan …Appellant
Vs.
1.C.Preethika
2.Master Ranadev Sai
…Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of
Family Courts Act, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 11.01.2023 in
I.A.No.1 of 2022 in H.M.O.P.No.5223 of 2021 passed by the learned III
Additional Principal Family Judge, Chennai and allow the appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.M.P.Saravanan
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No. 608 of 2023
ORDER
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J.)
This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed as against the order dated
11.01.2023 passed in I.A.No. 1 of 2022 In H.MO.P.No.5223 of 2021 on the file
of III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. Pending O.P.No.5223
of 2021, I.A.No.1/2022 was filed by the respondents herein under Section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act praying to direct the appellant herein to pay a sum of
Rs.25,000/- per month to the 1st respondent and Rs.25,000/- to the 2nd
respondent as interim maintenance and Rs.35,000/- towards litigation expenses
to the respondents herein.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2022,it was contended
by the 1st respondent/wife that the marriage between the first respondent and the
appellant was solemnized on 04.11.2020 at Ramasamy Marriage Hall,
Kodungaiyur, Chennai. Out of the said wedlock, a male child namely Ranadev
Sai was born on 24.05.2021. However, the marital life of the 1st respondent/wife
was not happy due to the ill treatment made by the appellant/husband. While so,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No. 608 of 2023
the 1st respondent/wife filed H.M.O.P.No.5223 of 2021 for divorce. Due to the
filing of the above divorce petition, the respondents are now depending on her
aged parents for survival. The appellant/husband is working as System support
Engineer in DXC Technology, at Olimphia Tech Park No.116 Jawaharlal Nehru
Road, Guindy, Chennai-32 and drawing salary for a sum of Rs.92,000/-
(Rupees Ninety Two Thousand only) and the appellant/husband is a partner in
the Textile name and style of ''Outfit Men's wear,'' at No.42, Lakshmi Amman
Koil Street, Ramana Nagar, Perambur, Chennai-11, from which Textile
business, the respondent getting income of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand
only) per month. Therefore the appellant/husband, being a father, is bound to
pay maintenance to the minor son that apart she is also entitled for maintenance
has claimed in the petition.
3.The said application was resisted by the appellant/husband by filing a
counter, stating that the 1st respondent/wife is employed in Cogizant
Technology Company and earning a sum of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty five
thousand only) per month and therefore, the 1st respondent/wife is not eligible
for maintenance and he would take care of his son, if the child is handed over to
his custody.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No. 608 of 2023
4. Before the Family Court, both the appellant/Huband and the 1st
respondent/wife did not examine any witnesses. The Family Court, taking into
account the rival pleadings as well as the submissions made on behalf of both
parties, rendered a specific finding that, there is no proof to establish the
income of the 1st respondent/wife and therefore, the appellant/husband is liable
to maintain his wife and his son.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/husband has preferred an
appeal stating that the interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court in
I.A.No. 1 of 2022 is excessive.
6. Mr.M.P.Saravanan, learned counsel for the appellant/husband would
only contend that the 1st respondent/wife being a working women, the Family
Court ought not to have entertained the interim application for maintenance and
prayed for allowing the appeal. To support his contention, he has relied upon
the following decisions in C.M.A.Nos.1354 and 1355 of 2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No. 608 of 2023
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
materials placed on record.
8. Admittedly, in this case, the appellant/husband is employed and
drawing salary for a sum of Rs.92,000/- (Rupees Ninety Two Thousand only)
per month and no iota of evidence to show that the 1st respondent/wife is
employed and earning a sum of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty five thousand only)
per month or any other source of income to maintain herself and her son and
also to meet the litigation expenses.
9. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act empowers the Court in any
proceedings under the Act, if it appears to the Court that either the wife or the
husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or
his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the
application of any one of them, order the other party to pay to the petitioner the
expenses of the proceeding and monthly maintenance as may seem to be
reasonable during the proceeding, having regard to the income of both the
applicant and the respondent. The object of granting pendente lite maintenance
to the wife is only to add financial support for her livelihood or her survival, to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No. 608 of 2023
meet her basic needs, till the disposal of the matrimonial proceeding. In the
present case, there is no proof that the first respondent/wife is employed. But in
the case referred by the learned counsel for the appellant, there was sufficient
proof that the 1st respondent/wife was employed and was earning. Therefore, the
said decided case do not apply to the facts in the present case.
10. Hence, considering the above facts, the Family Court has awarded a
sum of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen thousand only) for the 1st respondent/wife
and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) for the 2nd respondent/child as
monthly maintenance which is in our considered opinion is quite acceptable to
support their livelihood.
11. Hence, we find no merits in this appeal and accordingly, this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(D.K.K.J,) (K.G.T.J)
09.03.2023
vsn
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No. 608 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No. 608 of 2023
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
and
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI , J.
vsn
C.M.A.No. 608 of 2023
09.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
