Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1071 (MAD)

N. Ramesh v. R. Gnanasaraswathi

2007-03-26

S.ASHOK KUMAR

body2007
Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 26. 2006 made in I.A.No: 754 of 2005 in F.C.O.P.No: 1523 of 2004 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, directing the revision petitioner/husband to pay a monthly interim maintenance of Rs.17,000 /= to the respondent/wife and two children. 2. The FCOP.No.1523 of 2004 has been filed by the revision petitioner/husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of cruelty committed by the respondent/wife. Pending the said petition, the respondent/wife filed I.A.No.754 of 2005 for interim alimony of Rs.25,000/= per month towards her childrens education and family expenses and Rs.10,000/= towards litigation expenses. The wife also filed O.P.No.975 of 2005 for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner/husband resisted the said petition contending that the respondent wife is a spendthrift. He is not owning any property in VI Cross St., Sastri Nagar, Kandanchavadi, Venkatarahinam Nagar and Teachers Colony. He is owning only 15 acres of agricultural lands in Sriperumbuthur and getting only 15,000/= per annum. He is not having bank balance of Rs.1 crore as alleged by the wife. He is not having any lands worth Rs.5 crores. After marriage the wifes father gave her 5 acres of land. His father also gave her 5.45 acres of lands near Sriperumbuthur. There are coconut trees. There is a sugarcane cultivation. She has sufficient means. She has sufficient means to maintain herself and the children. Therefore she is not entitled to get any maintenance. 3. Before the leaned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, the wife examined herself as P.W.1 apart from filing Exs.P.1 to P.9 and the husband examined himself as R.W.1 besides filing Exs.R.1 to R.30. The Learned Judge, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, granted a sum of Rs.11,500 to the wife, Rs.3000/= to the first son and Rs.2,500/= to the second son and Rs.8,000/= as one time payment towards litigation expenses. Aggrieved of the same, the present revision has been filed by the husband. .4. A perusal of the impugned order would show that till May 2004, both the revision petitioner and the respondent with their children were living together. The learned Principal Judge has found that since Exs.R.10, R.12 and R.13 pertains to the period when they were living together, it cannot be taken that the respondent had independent income. .4. A perusal of the impugned order would show that till May 2004, both the revision petitioner and the respondent with their children were living together. The learned Principal Judge has found that since Exs.R.10, R.12 and R.13 pertains to the period when they were living together, it cannot be taken that the respondent had independent income. As regards R.14 and 15 showing the pledging of jewels and obtained money and gave the same to his friend Ravichandran has been denied and the said transactions are much anterior to their discordant relationship. R.19 bank pass book also does not show any transaction after their separation. Exs.R.20 to R.25 which are copies of sale deeds in the name of the wife, the revision petitioner did not file any document or proof to show that she derived any income thereof. Though it is alleged by the petitioner that the wife herself admitted the receipt of several lakhs of rupees from him and also from the lands in the letter dated 11. 2003 according to the respondent, the petitioner did several business in her name benami and in such course, he obtained her signatures in many blank papers and now utilised one of such paper to concoct a story to suit his convenience. Further, the letter is dated 11. 2003 during which time their relationship was not of strained nature. It is not disputed by the wife that she is getting a sum of Rs.3,500/= as interest per month from the deposit of Rs.2 lakhs. 5. It is the further case of the respondent that the petitioners father Advocate Narayanasamy died after leaving vast extent of valuable properties at several places to his three sons, one of them is the petitioner. The petitioner has sold several lands for several crores of rupees along with his brothers and is having liquid cash. Though the petitioner admits certain properties standing in his name also stated in evidence that most of the properties are joint properties. But, admittedly his parents are no more and the entire properties devolved on the three sons, which includes rental, agricultural yields etc., For the query as to the value of the lands, the petitioner did not choose to reply any answer. .6. As regards P.3 to P.5 sale deeds of 15. But, admittedly his parents are no more and the entire properties devolved on the three sons, which includes rental, agricultural yields etc., For the query as to the value of the lands, the petitioner did not choose to reply any answer. .6. As regards P.3 to P.5 sale deeds of 15. 2005, 20.9.2005 and 20.9.2005 respectively by one Natrayan, POA of the petitioner and his two brothers for the sale of lands in Perungudi Village to different persons, though it is alleged by the respondent that Rs.30 crores had been given to the petitioner and his brothers, the petitioner denied the same as it has been sold by the Power Agent without their consent and they did not get any amount and criminal case has been field against them. But during cross examination it was elicited that no criminal action had been taken. Subsequently by reopening the evidence, the petitioner marked Exs.R.27 and R.28 and also R.29 and R.30 to stage manage that criminal action had been intended to be initiated against the said Power Agent. But it is rightly observed by the trial court that such Exhibits came into being much later to his non intimation of any action against him in the answer given on 2. 2006. But the fact remains that the petitioner and his two brothers have sold valuable lands in Perungudi in the I.T.corridor for several crores of rupees. Being Advocates, it is quite unacceptable to believe that they have not received an pie from the Power Agent. 7. It is also recorded by the learned trial Judge that in his cross examination the petitioner/husband refused to disclose his income and he did not give any reason for non filing of the I.T Return copies also. In a petition for interim alimony and when the wife alleges that the husband has enormous income, it is the duty of the husband particularly when he disputes such huge income to prove the same by some documentary evidence. 8. It is also not disputed by the husband that the wife is residing n a rent of Rs.4400/= apart from paying maintenance charges. It is also not in dispute that the children are in the custody of the wife. Their first son is now studying in Satyabama Engineering College and their second son is also studying Higher Secondary Education. 8. It is also not disputed by the husband that the wife is residing n a rent of Rs.4400/= apart from paying maintenance charges. It is also not in dispute that the children are in the custody of the wife. Their first son is now studying in Satyabama Engineering College and their second son is also studying Higher Secondary Education. The respondent says that she has availed huge amount as loans by pledging her jewels and some properties given by her father. Even during the course of this proceedings, the petitioner has only paid a sum of Rs.1 lakh, leaving the balance of arrears of Rs.3,18,500/= including the litigation expenses of Rs.8,000/= as awarded by the trial court. It is also seen that the lands covered in Exs.R.20 to R.26, purchased the name of the respondent, which are landed properties, they are being enjoyed by the petitioner himself and he has not even filed the title deeds for many of the properties before the court below. Therefore it is clear that the respondent is not getting any income from the said properties. .9. It is to be seen that grant of maintenance pendente lite is not dependent either on merits of the main O.P., or on the decision of the issues involved, since all the disputed questions could be decided finally in the final hearing of the Original Petitions filed by both the parties. Therefore, the interim alimony awarded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, is not liable to be interfered with. 10. In the result, the CRP is dismissed. M.P.No:1 of 2007 is closed. M.P.No.1 of 2006 is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to pay the balance maintenance awarded and also directed to continue to pay the monthly interim maintenance until further orders by the trial court. No costs.