Madras High Court
S.Devaharirajan vs Sangeetha on 24 October, 2024
CRP.No.4291 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
CRP.No.4291 of 2024
and C.M.P.No.23849 of 2024
S.Devaharirajan .. Petitioner
Versus
Sangeetha .. Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 05.10.2023 made in
I.A.No.2 of 2022 in HMOP.No.34 of 2021 on the file of the learned
Principal Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.K.Kulasekaran
ORDER
This civil revision petition is at the instance of the husband.
2. O.P.No.34 of 2024 has been initiated by the husband seeking for
divorce under Section 13(1)(1-a) of this Hindu Marriage Act. There is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dispute in the relationship between the parties. The petitioner/husband
married the respondent/wife on 11.07.2019 at Kundrathur in Chennai. From
the wedlock, a girl child was born on 29.05.2020. Soon thereafter the parties
separated and they are now meeting in the Court. The husband called upon
the wife to agree to divorce by mutual consent, but she did not agree to the
same. Hence, he came forward with HMOP 34 of 2021.
3. Pending the HMOP, the wife took out an application for grant of
interim maintenance in IA.No.2 of 2022. She pleaded that she is
unemployed and as the child is aged about four years, she has to take care of
it and therefore, sought for interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/-.
4. The civil revision petitioner/husband entered appearance and
pleaded that he is earning Rs.300 per day and with that paltry sum, he has to
take care of himself and his aged mother. He added that the tuition classes,
he was handling before the pandemic caused by covid-19 had to be wound
up. He pleaded today he relies solely upon selling steel scrubbers for the
purpose of eking out a living. Hence, he pleaded that the wife is not entitled
to maintenance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The learned Judge, who had the opportunity of looking at the
parties and after assessment of their status, decided that the husband will
pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the wife and child. Aggrieved by the said order,
the husband is on revision.
6. I have heard Mr.T.K.Kulasekaran for the civil revision petitioner.
7. Mr.T.K.Kulasekaran argues that the order of the learned Trial Judge
deserves interference for the following reasons:
(i) the child has not been impleaded as a party to the proceedings;
(ii) the wife, being a recalcitrant person, who wants to live in a
nuclear family to the exclusion of the mother-in-law, had not initiated any
proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
8. Mr.T.K.Kulasekaran points out that the petitioner/husband has to
take care of his mother and he is not in a position to pay maintenance to the
wife. Finally he argues that the wife is educated and that, she is capable of
earning and the husband should not be made to pay for her maintenance. At
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the time of winding up of arguments, he states that the High Courts of
Karnataka, Kerala, Punjab and Madhya Pradesh have come down heavily on
a separated wife invoking Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance and thereby,
standing in the way of reunion.
9. I have carefully considered the argument of Mr.T.K.Kulasekaran
10. There is no dispute in the relationship between the parties. As held
by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, it is the
sacrosanct duty of the husband to maintain his wife and child. The Courts
have consistently held that even if a wife is capable of earning, the mere fact
that she has such capability does not mean she is not entitled to
maintenance.
11. With respect to the plea that the child has not been impleaded
under Section 24, I have to only re-state the settled position of law that the
maintenance for a wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act includes
the maintenance that has to be ordered for the child. Hence, non-impleading
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the child is not essential.
12. As regards the filing of an application under Section 9, failure to
file an application for restitution of conjugal rights is not a bar for the wife
to claim maintenance under Section 24. Under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, a spouse has to plead that he or she is not in a position to
maintain themselves. Once it is substantiated by filing of an affidavit of
assets before the Court, then the burden is on the opposing spouse and in
this case, the husband has to prove that the wife is generating income and
still, she is making an unfair claim on the husband. Such a plea is absent in
the counter that has been filed by the civil revision petitioner.
13. With respect to the plea that he has to maintain his mother, I am
not able to accept the said submission. Maintenance of one’s mother is not
mutually exclusive from the maintenance of the wife and child. It is the duty
of the son to maintain the mother and it is equally the duty of the husband to
maintain the wife and child. Therefore, that submission too deserves
rejection.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14. With respect to the plea that Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act
and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been abused,
Mr.T.K.Kulasekaran has not produced any judgment that is said to have
been pronounced by the aforesaid Courts. Even if such judgment had been
pronounced, I am of the view that they would have been pronounced in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the said case presented before the
learned Judges, who dealt with the said application.
15. For the purpose of this revision, I am satisfied that the amount of
Rs.15,000/- for two human being living in the city of Chennai can neither
said to be excessive nor arbitrary. It hardly works out to Rs.300 per day for
the wife and Rs.150 for the child. Considering the cost of living and status
of the parties, the learned Trial Judge has been very reasonable in fixing a
sum of Rs.15,000/-. I do not find any reason to interfere.
16. In fine, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
24.10.2024
nl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Index : yes/no
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : yes/no
To
The Principal Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
nl
24.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
