Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2352 (MAD)

Rajiv Mangal v. Ritu Mangal

2012-06-08

C.S.KARNAN

body2012
Judgment :- The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 1. The first respondent herein had filed the maintenance case, for her son and herself, in M.C.No.482 of 2008, on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, stating that the revision petitioner herein had married her at Hotel Chola Sheraton, Chennai, on 12.12.1994 as per Hindu Customs and Rites. After marriage, both led their married life at the matrimonial home, Chennai. Out of wedlock, the second respondent herein, viz, Aditya Mangal was born on 06.11.1995. The wife further submitted that right from the inception of the marriage, the revision petitioner/husband ill-treated her. As such, difference of opinion has arisen between both of them. The family members of her husband also ill-treated her. These disputes finally resulted in separation, and the respondent/wife started to live alone. The first respondent/wife further submitted that the revision petitioner is a businessman and is earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month. 2. The revision petitioner has filed O.P.No.1621 of 2007 for divorce, in spite of the wife willing to compromise and live with the revision petitioner, along with their son. The revision petitioner is running a finance business and is financially well-placed in society. Hence, the first respondent has claimed monthly maintenance of a sum of Rs.10,000/-to herself and a sum of Rs.15,000/- to her son. 3. The revision petitioner had filed a counter statement and resisted the maintenance case. The revision petitioner denied all the allegations levelled against him. The revision petitioner further submits that his wife made false allegations against his parents. He further submitted that his wife is an income tax assessee and therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance from him. His wife herself had deserted him and living separately of her own accord. The revision petitioner further submits that he is not earning a huge amount as alleged by his wife. 4. After considering the averments of both the parties, the learned judge had framed an issue viz., "Whether the petitioners are entitled to maintenance of Rs.25,000/- from the respondent?" The learned judge had examined the second petitioner, viz., Adithya Mangal. After examining the boy, the learned judge observed that the boy was very much interested to live with his mother and that they are leading their life in a comfortable manner. After examining the boy, the learned judge observed that the boy was very much interested to live with his mother and that they are leading their life in a comfortable manner. The learned judge further observed that the boy was very intelligent and also concentrating well on his studies. After considering all aspects, the learned judge had awarded a monthly maintenance of a sum of Rs.8,000/- to the wife and a sum of Rs.7,000/-to the son, in his judgment passed in M.c.No.482 of 2008, dated 23.01.2012. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the above revision has been filed. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the learned judge had awarded a monthly maintenance of a sum of Rs.8,000/- and Rs.7,000/- to the revision petitioner's wife and son is an erroneous way without any earning proof of the revision petitioner. The wife is an earning lady and her income has been shown as Rs.1,39,132/-as per Ex.P5. Therefore, the wife is not entitled to receive any maintenance from the revision petitioner. The first respondent/wife has several deposits in her name. As such, she is capable of maintaining herself. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the second respondent is a minor school going boy and is studying in a reputed school. The first respondent is the dutiful mother of the second respondent and she is taking much care on the second respondent's welfare and education. The revision petitioner is not at all taking any care of the second respondent. The first respondent is a home maker and as such she and her son have to maintain their status of living, as per the status of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner is a leading financier and as such capable of paying the maintenance awarded. The respondents herein have claimed a sum of Rs.25,000/-in total, but the learned judge has awarded only a sum of Rs.15,000/- as monthly maintenance to them. The quantum of maintenance is inadequate. Hence, the learned counsel has prayed to dismiss the revision. 8. The revision petitioner is a leading financier and as such capable of paying the maintenance awarded. The respondents herein have claimed a sum of Rs.25,000/-in total, but the learned judge has awarded only a sum of Rs.15,000/- as monthly maintenance to them. The quantum of maintenance is inadequate. Hence, the learned counsel has prayed to dismiss the revision. 8. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by the learned counsels on both sides and on perusing the judgment of the trial Court, this Court is of the considered view that the revision petitioner's son is a brilliant student and is very interested in pursuing his studies; that the first respondent / wife is the care taker and mother of the revision petitioner's son;that both are living in the Metro-City of Chennai. Therefore, the total maintenance of a sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded to the respondents herein is not on the higher side as the expenses incurred by them include food, accommodation, transport, communication, dress, cosmetics, educational expenses of the second respondent herein and servant maid's salary and medical expenditure etc., Therefore, this Court is not warranted to interfere with the judgment and decree passed in M.C.No.482 of 2008 on the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai, dated 23.01.2012. 9. This Court has directed the revision petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-into the credit of in M.C.No.482 of 2008 on the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai. Now the respondents herein filed M.P.No.2 of 2012 in Crl.R.C.No.254 of 2012, stating that this Court's conditional order has been complied with on 27.03.2012. Now, this Court permits the first respondent / wife to withdraw the same after filing a Memo before the Principal Family Court, Chennai. This Court further directs the revision petitioner to pay the monthly maintenance of a sum of Rs.15,000/-regularly to the first respondent/wife directly or deposit it into the credit of M.C.No.482 of 2008 on the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai. 10. Resultantly, the above revision is dismissed. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed in M.C.No.482 of 2008 on the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai, dated 23.01.2012 is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.