Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2234 (MAD)

A. Sangili v. D. Latha

2014-07-23

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : G. Chockalingam, J. 1. The appellant/husband, being aggrieved by the order dated 21.09.2013 passed by the learned I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.3200 of 2011 in O.P.No.3766 of 2010, has filed this appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 23.02.2006 at Country Greens Ugadi Hall, North Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai -17. In the year 2010, the respondent/wife has filed a petition in O.P.No.3766 of 2010 for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion against the appellant/husband. Pending the said divorce petition, the respondent/wife has filed an application in I.A.No.3200 of 2011 before the learned Family Judge, Chennai, seeking interim maintenance. The learned I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, after hearing both the parties, allowed the petition in part and directed the appellant/husband to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/-per month to the respondent/wife towards her maintenance from the date of petition till the date of disposal of the Original Petition. The appellant/husband was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards litigation expenses and he was directed to pay the monthly maintenance on 5th of Every English Calendar month. As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/husband. 3. During the course of hearing the miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.1 of 2014, this Court, by an order dated 29.04.2014, granted interim stay and the said order reads as under:- "3.There shall be an order of interim stay subject to the following conditions:- a. The petitioner / husband is directed to pay the arrears of maintenance, viz., [1] at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month as against Rs.8,000/-per month awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of petition till March 2013 and [2] at the rate of Rs.8,000/-per month from April 2013 to March 2014. b. It is made clear that the total arrears of maintenance, i.e., clause [1] plus clause [2]in clause [a] above, is to be paid by the petitioner/husband directly to the respondent/wife in two equal monthly instalments. The first instalment is to be paid on or before 31.05.2014and the second instalment is to be paid on or before 30.06.2014. c. With regard to payment of monthly maintenance, the petitioner/husband shall continue to pay the amount awarded by the Tribunal, i.e., Rs.8,000/-per month from April 2014 till final orders are being passed. The first instalment is to be paid on or before 31.05.2014and the second instalment is to be paid on or before 30.06.2014. c. With regard to payment of monthly maintenance, the petitioner/husband shall continue to pay the amount awarded by the Tribunal, i.e., Rs.8,000/-per month from April 2014 till final orders are being passed. d. The monthly maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.8,000/-per month as awarded by the Court below, for the month of April 2014, should be paid by the petitioner/husband to the respondent / wife directly, on or before 10.05.2014. e. The maintenance amount for the period commencing from May 2014, should be paid by the petitioner / husband, directly to the respondent/wife on or before 10th of every succeeding English Calendar month without fail until further orders. f. It is made clear that failure on the part of the petitioner / husband to pay the any one of the instalments with regard to the arrears of maintenance as well as any one of the monthly maintenance, would result in the interim stay granted by this Court today, vacated automatically, without any further reference to this Court and the 1st respondent/wife is at liberty to move the Execution Petition already filed by her in the Court below." 4. It is reported that the appellant/husband had partly complied with the order. Now, at the request of both the parties, the main appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/husband contended that the respondent/wife left the matrimonial home on her own volition. It is further contended that the learned trial Judge failed to take into account the hardship and the monthly expenses incurred by the appellant/husband and awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month to the respondent/wife towards her maintenance and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses, which are exorbitant. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the order of the learned trial Judge warrants interference by this Court. 7. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the order of the learned trial Judge warrants interference by this Court. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/wife contended that the learned trial Judge, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, correctly came to the conclusion and passed an award, directing the appellant/husband to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month to the respondent/wife towards her maintenance and a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards litigation expenses and therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Judge has to be confirmed. 8. Since this appeal is against the order passed by the learned trial Judge granting interim maintenance, it is but necessary for us to consider the relevant document to arrive at the right conclusion. Therefore, we perused the Salary Certificate of the appellant produced before us. That Pay Slip pertains to the month of October 2013. From a perusal of the same, it is seen that the appellant, who is working as a Manager in Melur Branch of Indian Bank, is drawing a gross salary of Rs.58,958/- per month and after deductions, his net salary is Rs.31,929/- per month. The Court below has taken the Salary certificate for the month of March 2013 into account, which was marked as Ex.P.1 before it. It reveals that the gross salary of the appellant for the month of March 2013 is Rs.56,347.75 and the net salary is Rs.35,018.75. Thus it is evident that the appellant is drawing somewhere between Rs.31,000/- to Rs.35,000/-per month as net salary. Considering the fact that the appellant is earning a sum of Rs.31,000/-per month, the sum of Rs.8,000/- fixed as interim maintenance payable to the respondent is not an exorbitant sum. In other words, we are of the view that the learned trial Judge is quite reasonable in fixing a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as interim maintenance payable by the husband to the wife. Thus finding no ground to interfere with the order impugned, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.