Madras High Court
Manuel Xavier Rajesh vs Ritu Goyal on 23 October, 2024
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
C.M.A.No.283 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
C.M.A.No.283 of 20202
Manuel Xavier Rajesh,
Flat No.1-B, Vaishnavi Apartments,
No.9, Prithvi Avenue, Off St.Mary's Road,
Chennai - 600 018 ..Appellant
Vs.
Ritu Goyal,
B1, 9 Anugraha Apartment,
Vidyodaya 1st Cross,
T.Nagar,
Chennai - 600 017. ..Respondent
Prayer:
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of Family
Courts Act against the order dated 15.10.2019 passed by the IV
Additional Principal Family Judge at Chennai allowing I.A.No.04/2019
inO.p.No.5008 of 2018.
For Appellant : No appearance
For Respondent : Mr.Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1/4
C.M.A.No.283 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(The order of the Court was made by Mrs.J.Nisha Banu,J.)
When the matter was taken up for hearing on 21.10.2024, learned
counsel for the appellant is not present. Therefore, the matter was
directed to be posted on 22.10.2024 under the caption 'for dismissal.
When the matter was called on 22.10.2024, learned counsel for the
appellant would state he is not able to contact his client and has not
received any instruction from him and hence, he will not appear for the
appellant any more. Therefore, Registry was directed to remove the name
of the learned counsel for the appellant and to print the name of the
appellant in the cause list.
2. Today, the name of the appellant is printed in the cause list.
Learned counsel for the respondent is present. The appellant is not
present.
3. Since the above appeal is filed as against the interim
maintenance, as per the judgment in G.V.N.S.Siva Prasad vs. V.Jyostna
Devi made in C.M.A.No.1018 of 2022 dated 27.03.2024, the Division
Bench of this Court, after referring to the judgment of S.Menaka v.
K.S.K. Nepolian Socraties and other cases (Batch) reported in
2024:MHC:1405 (Neutral Citation of Madras High Court) and 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Live Law (Mad) 126 held that as against the interlocutory applications/
interim maintenance, only Civil Revision Petition under 227 of the
Constitution of India, would lie and not Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
4. Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with
liberty to the appellant to file Civil Revision Petition. When the CRP is
filed, the period spent in prosecuting the CMA shall be excluded, for the
purpose of limitation. If the appellant requests for return of certified
copy of the impugned order, the same shall be returned to him forthwith
under due acknowledgement. No costs.
(J.N.B,J.) (R.K.M., J.)
Index : Yes / No 23.10.2024
Internet : Yes
vsi
To
IV Additional Principal Family Judge
at Chennai
J. NISHA BANU, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and
R.KALAIMATHI,J.
vsi
23.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
