Madras High Court
V.Venkatesh vs K.Ramya on 12 November, 2024
C.R.P.(PD)No.4355 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(PD)No.4355 of 2024
and C.M.P.No.24248 of 2024
V.Venkatesh .. Petitioner
Vs
K.Ramya .. Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated 10.01.2023
passed in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in H.M.O.P.No.4633 of 2019 by the learned
IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Ms. Geeta Ramaseshan
For Respondent : Mr.Adi Narayana Rao
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/11
C.R.P.(PD)No.4355 of 2024
ORDER
This civil revision petition arises against the order passed by the
learned IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Chennai in
I.A.No.3 of 2021 in H.M.O.P.No.4633 of 2019, dated 10.01.2023.
2. There is no dispute in the relationship between the parties. The
civil revision petitioner is the husband and the sole respondent is the wife.
They entered into a matrimony on 24.02.2014. From the wedlock, a child
was born on 15.08.2015. Thereafter, due to disputes and differences, the
parties have separated. The wife had initiated proceedings for divorce in
H.M.O.P.No.93 of 2017, on the file of the Family Court at Chennai.
Pleadings were completed and the evidence was also recorded. When
H.M.O.P.No.93 of 2017 was at the stage of arguments, the husband filed
H.M.O.P.No.4633 of 2019 seeking for restitution of conjugal rights.
3. The respondent/wife took out an application in I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of
2021 on 05.10.2021 seeking for interim maintenance for herself and for
the child and for litigation expenses in H.M.O.P.No.4633 of 2019. In so
far as the litigation expenses is concerned, Rs.30,000/- was ordered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
There is no revision as against the said order. Hence, I need not go into
the merits of these proceedings.
4. With respect to I.A.No.3 of 2021 namely, the petition filed under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, notice was ordered to the
respondent/husband. The wife pleaded that though she is an M.B.A.
graduate, she is earning only a sum of Rs.26,000/- per month, whereas
the husband is generating an income of Rs.70 lakhs per year.
5. The husband filed a counter in the said application stating that
the wife is employed in BOTVFX Company and is earning Rs.26,000/-
per month. He pointed out that this factum was admitted by her in the
cross-examination in the previous proceeding. He pleaded that the entire
idea of the petition under Section 24 was only to fleece the husband and
extract some money from him. The learned Judge called upon the parties
to file their affidavits of assets and liabilities.
6. On consideration of the affidavit, counter and the affidavits of
assets & liabilities of both the parties, the learned Judge came to a
conclusion that the husband is liable to pay Rs.20,000/- per month to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
wife from 05.10.2021 till the disposal of H.M.O.P. proceedings. He
ordered Rs.25,000/- per month for the maintenance of the child.
7. Aggrieved by the said order dated 10.01.2023, an appeal was
preferred by the husband to this Court in C.M.A.No.1539 of 2023. The
said appeal came to be dismissed as not maintainable following the
judgment of the Division Bench in S.Menaka v. K.S.K.Nepolian
Socraties, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 126. Subsequently, challenging the very
same order, this civil revision petition has arisen before me.
8. When the matter came up for admission, I requested Ms.Geeta
Ramaseshan to serve the entire typed set of papers on Mr.Adhi Narayana
Rao, who represents the wife in the Court below. Accordingly, the papers
have been served. I took up the matter for final disposal.
9. The primary point urged by Ms.Geeta Ramaseshan is that the
income tax returns produced by the husband before the Family Court at
Chennai shows that he is generating an income of Rs.4,20,000/- per year.
That being the situation, he cannot be called upon to pay Rs.45,000/- per
month.
10. Secondly and more importantly, Ms.Geeta Ramaseshan relies
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
upon an appointment order that had been issued to the respondent/wife
by M/s.Phantom Digital Effects Limited, situated in Ambattur, whereby
the respondent/wife was earning an income of Rs.11,04,000/- per year.
She pleads, obviously the wife is earning more than Rs.25,000/- per
month that has been disclosed by the respondent/wife in the affidavit of
assets. Hence, she pleaded that the order impugned requires to be revised.
11. I should point out here, Ms.Geeta Ramaseshan very fairly
stated in so far as the child is concerned, the father will continue to pay a
sum of Rs.25,000/- fixed by the Trial Court and the school fees which the
child incurs on academic year after academic year.
12. Mr.Adi Narayana Rao invites me to the proof affidavit filed by
the husband shows that the plea of the husband is the false one. He notes
that the entire personal expenses for the husband alone comes to
Rs.55,000/-, whereas his income is only Rs.22,726/- per month.
Therefore, he states that the husband has burked the fact that he is
generating income from the construction company that he is currently
co-owning along with his father.
13. With equal fairness, Mr.Adi Narayana Rao accepts that the
wife is currently employed in Hyderabad with M/s.Phantom Digital
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Effects Limited. He also states that the amount that has been given in
annexure – A of the said letter dated 06.01.2023 is also true. He adds that
the husband has been only depositing 50% of the maintenance amount
awarded by the Court and not the amount as fixed by the Trial Court. He
states that his client has not taken any steps for enforcing the order,
though the stay was vacated on the dismissal of the appeal in April 2024.
He adds the amount that has been fixed takes into consideration the
status of the parties and therefore, it does not require any interference at
all.
14. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and
have gone through the records.
15. As premised earlier, there is no dispute in the relationship
between the parties and the fact that there is a child from the wedlock.
The husband is also not agitating the correctness of the amount of
Rs.25,000/- fixed for the child. He stands by his statement that he will
continue to pay the school fees of the child. Therefore, this Court has to
turn its attention only to the amount of maintenance that the wife would
be entitled to pending disposal of H.M.O.P.No.4633 of 2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16. The learned Judge, at the time of disposal of the application,
could not take into consideration the employment that had been secured
by the respondent/wife. This is on account of the fact that it was not
brought to the notice of the Court. I am not placing much weight on the
fact that the respondent did not bring it to the notice of the Court, since
she was appointed on 06.01.2023 and the order was passed on
10.01.2023. Perhaps the appointment order came, after the orders being
reserved and therefore, it could not be brought to the attention of the
Court.
17. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the wife is generating
about Rs.11 lakhs of income per year. I have to observe that by itself does
not disentitle her for maintenance. Her place of employment is in
Hyderabad and obviously, she has to incur expenses for her travel from
Hyderabad to Chennai. Mr.Adi Narayana Rao states that the wife travels
on every week-end to be with the child.
18. I have to agree with Mr.Adi Narayana Rao on the point that
while the husband has filed income tax returns of Rs.4,20,000/- per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
annum, he seems to be a financial wizard in being able to spend Rs.6
lakhs per year on himself. As to how the husband is able to spend Rs.2
lakhs more than what he is actually earning, is not for me to investigate
here. Suffice to say, much weight cannot be placed on his income tax
returns. The specific assertion of the wife is that the husband is working
along with his father in a construction company and earning about Rs.70
lakhs per year. The counter does not specifically deny this aspect.
19. Taking over all circumstances into consideration, I am of the
view that the order of the learned Judge granting maintenance does not
require interference, but the quantum of maintenance alone requires to be
revised.
20. In the light of the above discussions, I pass the following the
orders:
(i) The amount of maintenance for the wife is fixed at Rs.20,000/-
per month from 05.10.2021 till 31.01.2023.
(ii) From 01.02.2023 till date, the husband shall pay a sum of
Rs.15,000/- per month to the wife as maintenance.
(iii) As 50% of the amount has been deposited by the husband, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
wife will be entitled to withdraw the said amount.
(iv) On filing a cheque application, the husband will have no
objection for withdrawal of the same.
(v) He is granted six weeks time to pay the balance amount.
(vi) The husband shall file a memo of calculation before the Court
as to the amounts due from October 2021 till January 2023 and the
amount that the husband has to pay from February 2023 till date.
(vii) Needless to point out the liability of the husband to pay
Rs.25,000/- per month and the school fees for the child continues.
(viii) Both counsels point out that the evidence is completed in
O.P.No.93 of 2017 and H.M.O.P.No.4633 of 2019 is posted for
cross-examination of the husband.
(ix) Therefore, the learned IV Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court at Chennai is requested to expedite the proceedings in
H.M.O.P.No.4633 of 2019 and ensure that the trial in that proceedings is
completed by 31.03.2025. A common judgment is pronounced in both
O.P.No.93 of 2017 & H.M.O.P.Nos.4633 of 2019 on or before
30.04.2025.
(x) The arguments in O.P.No.93 of 2017 shall await the
completion of the trial in H.M.O.P.No.4633 of 2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21. With the above directions, the civil revision petition stands
partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
12.11.2024
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
kj
To
IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
kj
12.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
