Madras High Court
P.Vishnuraghav vs Manjula Devi on 10 June, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 06.06.2025
Pronounced on : 10.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.No.1852 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.10696 of 2025
P.Vishnuraghav .. Petitioner
Versus
1.Manjula Devi
2.Prithika (Minor)
3.Prashika (Minor)
Petitioners 2 and 3 represented by their mother Manjula Devi
.. Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to set aside the order dated 17.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in
OP.No.636 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional Family Court at Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Murugan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Venkata Krishnakumar
ORDER
Challenging the order of the Family Court granting Rs.15000/- monthly
maintenance to the first respondent herein, the revision petitioner being
husband has filed the present revision.
2. Brief background of filing the revision is as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 03:59:12 pm )
2.a. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was
solemnised according to the Hindu rites and custom on 27.01.2013 at
Pudukottai District. From their wedlock, two female children were born on
01.01.2014 and 02.07.2018. According to the revision petitioner, the
respondent was adamant and also resigned her job and she has also lodged
false complaint against the petitioner on 03.11.2020. In the police station, the
first respondent had adamantly insisted the respondent to sign the divorce
paper, however, thinking about the future of the children, the petitioner has
refused to sign it. Thereafter, the first respondent has deserted the petitioner
and living in the same house separately. Despite, request for reunion, she has
refused to cohabitate with the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed
divorce petition. During the pendency of the petition, an application has been
taken out by the first respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act
seeking maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to the first respondent/wife and
Rs.10,000/- each to the minor children.
2.b. In the impugned application, it is the contention of the wife that the
revision petitioner has half share in the premises at No.4, 8th Street,
Sowrashtra Nagar, Choolaimedu, Chennai and the said building would fetch a
monthly rent of Rs.1 lakh. That apart, the revision petitioner has also joined
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 03:59:12 pm )
as production manager and earning income and she has no income. That
application has been disputed by the revision petitioner. The Trial Court
taking note of the fact that the minor children are residing with the petitioner,
has ordered maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to the wife. Hence, this revision.
3. Originally, the revision petitioner has filed CRP.No.4197 of 2023
challenging the order dated 17.11.2022. The said revision was withdrawn as
not maintainable at that stage. Later, in view of a judgment of a Division
Bench of this Court, this revision has been filed once again challenging the
order dated 17.11.2022.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
Trial Court granting Rs.15,000/- maintenance as pleaded by the first
respondent is without any evidence. Further, regular income has not been
established. Out of the rental income, major portion is paid towards bank
interest in respect of the loan borrowed by the petitioner, these facts have not
been taken into consideration. Further, the very divorce petition itself is struck
off for alleged non payment. According to him, in the Execution Petition, a
sum of Rs.1,20,140/- is already paid and the petitioner is now willing to
deposit another Rs.2 lakhs, therefore, he may be permitted to contest the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 03:59:12 pm )
divorce petition by allowing the revision.
5.Whereas, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the
respondents is that the petitioner has not paid the maintenance as ordered by
the Trial Court. While the earlier revision was withdrawn, the petitioner was
directed to deposit Rs.3 lakhs and that amount is also not paid, therefore, the
revision is not maintainable.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
7. In light of the above pleadings and submissions, now, the following
point arises for consideration:
a. Whether the interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month is
reasonable?
Point 'a'
8. The revision petitioner has filed the divorce petition in OP.No.636 of
2021 on the ground of desertion and cruelty. Though he made certain
allegations against the wife in his counter as if she is leading adulterous life,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 03:59:12 pm )
this Court is not inclined to venture into those allegations at present since
those allegations has not been established, but the fact remains that the first
respondent has claimed maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to her and Rs.10,000/-
each to her children. The Trial Court has rightly found that the children are
with the petitioner, therefore, ordered Rs.15,000/- maintenance as prayed by
this respondent. It is also not disputed that the respondent wife is also residing
in the same house. Though it is alleged that revision petitioner was working
as production manager and earning other income apart from the monthly
rental income, this aspect has not been established before the Trial Court. The
Trial Court has merely based on the allegations made by the respondent has
granted the monthly maintenance as sought by her. It is pleaded by the
respondent herself that rental income from the house property would be
shared by the petitioner and his brother. Though it is stated that the rental
income is Rs.1 lakh, no evidence in the form of affidavit from the tenants has
been filed to show that rental income was more than Rs.1 lakh.
9. It is relevant to note that after deducting the expenses towards the
maintenance of the property, the rental income would be shared by the
revision petitioner and his brother, in such case at-least rental income would
be around Rs.40,000 to Rs.45,000/- to the petitioner. The revision petitioner
also pleaded that he has to pay the amount towards the interest of the loan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 03:59:12 pm )
borrowed by him for constructing the house. This aspect has not been
considered by the Trial Court. Further, the alleged income from other jobs has
also not been established. Further, children are also residing with the revision
petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in the absence of any
probable evidence, the Trial Court granting Rs.15,000/- as maintenance as
prayed by the first respondent in view of this Court is not proper.
10. Though the first respondent is said to have quit the job, she is also
M.B.A. Graduate. She is residing in the same house. Therefore, considering
the above, this Court is of the view that interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- as
ordered by the Trial Court is excessive, that too, without any evidence,
however, taking note of the nature of expenses required to maintain oneself,
particularly, in a city like Chennai minimum, Rs.10,000/- is required.
11. Admittedly, the respondent is residing in the same house, payment
of rents do not arise at all, therefore, this Court is of the view that the amount
of interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- be reduced to Rs.10,000/- and the same
will meet the ends of justice. If the interim maintenance is calculated at
Rs.10,000/- from the date of petition, viz., 21.10.2021 to till date, the same
will come around Rs.4,40,000/-. It is not disputed by both sides, in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 03:59:12 pm )
execution petition, a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- is already paid by the revision
petitioner. Therefore, the revision petitioner is hereby directed to deposit
further sum of Rs.3,20,000/- within a week from the date of receipt of copy of
this Order to the credit of execution petition in EP.No.52 of 2024. The first
respondent is entitled to withdraw such amount. On such deposit, the
OP.No.636 of 2021 which was struck off by the Trial Court dated 03.02.2024
is restored to the file of the Additional Family Court, Chennai. Thereafter, the
Trial Court shall dispose of the main OP on its own merits. It is made clear
that till the disposal of the Original Petition, the respondent shall continue to
pay the monthly maintenance at Rs.10,000/- as ordered by this Court.
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
11. Accordingly, this revision stands allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
10.06.2025
dhk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 03:59:12 pm )
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
1. The I Additional Family Court
Chennai
2.The Section Officer
VR Section, Madras High Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 03:59:12 pm )
