Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 849 (MAD)

Thangam alias Marudhanayagam v. Marudhambal

2000-08-25

FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA

body2000
ORDER: This civil revision petition has been filed against the order of the lower court dated 17.12.1996 passed in I.A.No.77 of 1995 in H.M.O.P. No.24 of 1995 in and by which an interim maintenance of Rs.250 was directed to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent, who is none other than his wife. Mr.Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is 65 years old, that he is an agriculturist depending on daily wages and in the circumstances the petitioner is not in a position even to maintain himself and therefore, the order of the lower court in granting maintenance of Rs.250 to be payable by way of interim maintenance was not proper. 2. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner is also not in possession of any properties so as to generate any funds to pay the interim maintenance order by the lower Court. As against the said submission, Mr.P.Valliappan, Amicus Curiae, at the request of his Hon’ble Court, after going through the papers contended that in law, the petitioner is bound to maintain his wife in as much as the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was admitted and under Sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, there is no scope for the petitioner to contend that merely because he is without means, he is not liable to pay any interim maintenance. The learned counsel relied upon A.S.Ramadass v. M.Malathi, (1999)3 M.L.J. 685 and Pandian alias Ganesan v. Suganthi, (1997)2 M.L.J. 455, in support of his submissions. 3. Sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as under: “Where in any proceeding under this Act 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 the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceedings, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable.” 4. A reading of the said provision would show that the whole purpose is to provide by way of ameliorating measure to make the husband or wife who-ever in distress for their livelihood during the pendency of the proceedings. A reading of the said provision would show that the whole purpose is to provide by way of ameliorating measure to make the husband or wife who-ever in distress for their livelihood during the pendency of the proceedings. Therefore, while considering any application filed under Sec.24 of the Act, the application of the said provisions should be with a view to meet ends of justice and that deserving party should be provided with some means to make both ends meet. 5. In the judgment reported in A.S.Ramadass v. M.Malathi, (1999)3 M.L.J. 685 , a learned Judge of this Hon’ble Court has relied upon the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal, Smt. v. District Judge, Dehra Dhun, (1997)7 S.C.C. 7 . In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is observed that if the wife has no source of income it is the obligation of the husband to maintain her and also the children of the marriage on the basis of the provisions contained in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and that her right to claim maintenance fructifies on the date of the filing of the petition for divorce under the act. Similarly, in the other judgment reported in Pandian alias Ganesan v. Suganthi, (1997)2 M.L.J. 455, His Lordship Justice AR.Lakshmanan, as he then was, while considering a case arising under Sec.24 of the Act was pleased to go to the extent of saying that in a petition filed under Sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the court can also invoke Sec.26 of the Act and grant maintenance to the children of the spouses, in cases where it is found necessary. His Lordship was pleased to hold that when in an application filed under Sec.24 of the Act, the Court below on appreciation of facts come to a conclusion and granted some interim maintenance, the same should not be disturbed. While coming to the said conclu- sion, the learned Judge was pleased to hold that while confirming the order of the lower court, the court should bear in mind about the liability of the husband for paying the maintenance to his wife and children. While coming to the said conclu- sion, the learned Judge was pleased to hold that while confirming the order of the lower court, the court should bear in mind about the liability of the husband for paying the maintenance to his wife and children. Therefore, applying the above stated principles of law to the facts of this case, I find that while considering the respondent’s application for payment of Rs.1000 by way of interim maintenance for herself as well as her children, the trial Court considering the various facts and circum- stances of the case granted a meager sum of Rs.250 to be payable by the petitioner to the respondent. The said conclusion of the court below cannot be said to be totally unjustified or that such a relief granted is opposed to any legal provision. 6. In fact, merely because the petitioner took the stand that he had no source of income, it cannot be held that no relief can be granted by way of interim maintenance, in an application filed under Sec.24. The petitioner having not disputed the relationship of the respondent as his wife, is legally as well as morally bound to maintain her during his lifetime. In that view also, there is no scope for interfering with the order of the trial Court which has granted a paltry sum of Rs.250 by way of maintenance to the respondent, who claimed that being without any job, she had to maintain her as well as her children. Looked at from any angle, the order of the court below cannot be held to be unjustified or illegal. There is therefore, no scope for interfering with the order of the lower Court and the same is confirmed. The civil revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.16104 of 1997 is closed.