Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2895 (MAD)

K. Lavanya v. G. Venkataraman

2010-07-16

G.RAJASURIA

body2010
Judgment Inveighing the order dated 6. 2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Villupuram in I.A.No.247 of 2008 in C.M.A.No.16 of 2006 in H.M.O.P.No.82 of 2002, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A summation and summarization of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: The respondent herein filed H.M.O.P.No.82 of 2002 seeking divorce as against the revision petitioner herein. During the pendency of the HMOP, petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed seeking interim maintenance and the same was awarded. It so happened that the HMOP was allowed. Being aggrieved by such order in allowing the HMOP, the revision petitioner herein preferred appeal in C.M.A.No.16 of 2006. During the pendency of the said appeal I.A.No.247 of 2008 was filed so as to enforce the arrears, which alleged to have accrued even after the disposal of H.M.O.P.No.82 of 2002. It appears that the interim order of maintenance was passed by the Court during the pendency of the H.M.O.P.No.82 of 2002. The Appellate Court after hearing both sides and referring to various decisions in this regard, dismissed the application by giving a specific finding that the interim order awarding interim maintenance, during the pendency of the H.M.O.P.No.82 of 2002 would not enure to the benefit of the revision petitioner herein after the H.M.O.P.No.82 of 2002 having been disposed of. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this revision has been filed. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds of revision, would develop his argument to the effect that once under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act interim maintenance was awarded then that would enure to the benefit of the person concerned till the matrimonial proceedings are over even before the Appellate Authority. However, despite granting ample opportunity, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner did not produce any precedents in support of his proposition. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would invite the attention of this Court to the following decisions and would develop her argument that absolutely, there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the Appellate Court in dismissing the said application. Certain excerpts from those decisions would run thus: 1. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would invite the attention of this Court to the following decisions and would develop her argument that absolutely, there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the Appellate Court in dismissing the said application. Certain excerpts from those decisions would run thus: 1. Kashi Math Samsthan and Another v. Srimad Sudhindra Thlrtha Swamy and Another (2010) 3 MLJ 351: 2010 SAR (Civil) 1 (Supreme Court) at p.353 of MLJ: “10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order of the High Court as well as the judgment of the trial Court, which dismissed the suit of the appellants in respect of which, appeals are now pending before the High Court for final adjudication. Before us, Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that since an interim order or status quo regarding the functioning of the Mathadhipathi of the Math was operative during the pendency of the suit and triable issues have to be gone into by the High Court in the First appeals, it was fit and proper for the High Court to direct the parties to maintain the interim order which was granted by the trial Court during the pendency of the suit. This submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellants was hotly contented by Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. According to Mr. Venugopal, since the appellants could not make out any prima facie case to get an interim order of injunction during the pendency of the appeals, question of continuance of the interim order, which was granted by the trial Court during the pendency of the suit, cannot arise at all. 11. Having heard the learned senior counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order and also the judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit of the appellants, we do not find any worthy reason to pass an interim order in the manner suggested by Mr.R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, in the exercise of our discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution.” 2. Mst. Mukan Kanwar v. Ajit Chand AIR 1961 Rajasthan 51 “3. Mst. Mukan Kanwar v. Ajit Chand AIR 1961 Rajasthan 51 “3. I have given the matter my careful consideration and am disposed to hold the view that the order of this Court dated the 13. 1958, cannot be held, to be effectual after the termination of the proceeding in the trial Court. I am prepared to accept that an appeal is a continuation of the proceeding in the original Court; but this principle cannot be overstretched to hold that any interim order passed at the stage of the proceeding in the primary Court automatically can operate even after the proceeding is decided by that Court. He cannot be heard to insist that as the appeal is a continuation of the suit, therefore, the order passed by the appellate Court pending the decision of the suit in the trial Court must hold good even after the suit happens to be decided by the trial Court. I have, therefore, arrived at the conclusion that the correct legal position would be to hold that the order for temporary alimony passed by this Court earlier enured during the life of this suit in the trial Court only and cannot survive……………………………” A mere poring over and perusal of those decisions would clearly demonstrate and display that the lower Court correctly applied the law and dismissed the application. 6. Accordingly, I find no merit in this revision and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the concerned miscellaneous petitions are closed. Revision dismissed.