Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 332 (MAD)

Karthikeyan v. P. Jayanthi (Unsound Person)

2014-02-12

K.KALYANASUNDARAM, M.JAICHANDREN

body2014
Judgment : K. Kalyanasundaram, J. 1. Impugning the order, dated 10.6.2013, passed by the Family Court, Pondicherry, in I.A.No.175 of 2012 in M.O.P.No.380 of 2010, this civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed. 2. The appellant had filed M.O.P.No.380 of 2010, before the Family Court, Pondicherry, for dissolution of his marriage, with the respondent, held on 26.8.2009. In the original petition, the respondent herein filed an application, in I.A.No.175 of 2012, seeking interim maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month. The appellant resisted the application, by filing a detailed counter. The learned Judge, Family Court, Pondicherry, partly allowed the application, directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- per month, to the respondent, towards interim maintenance. The said order is under challenge in the appeal. 3. Heard Mr.B.Baskaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr.G.K.Ilanthiraiyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the earlier original petition filed by the appellant, for restitution of conjugal rights, in O.P.No.149 of 2010, the respondent had agreed to join with the appellant, but later, she did not come to the matrimonial home, which necessitated the appellant to file the subsequent original petition, for divorce. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant is an unemployed and the respondent did not lead any evidence to prove the employment of the appellant and his liability to pay the interim maintenance. It is further submitted that the respondent/wife is an unsound person and therefore, the marriage itself is void ab initio and as such, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the marriage between the parties is an admitted one and the Family Court awarded only a meagre interim maintenance, in favour of the wife, which does not warrant interference by this Court. 6. Indisputably, the respondent is the wife of the appellant and the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized, as per the Hindu rites and customs, on 26.8.2009. 6. Indisputably, the respondent is the wife of the appellant and the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized, as per the Hindu rites and customs, on 26.8.2009. It is seen from the records that the appellant earlier filed a petition in MOP No.149 of 2010, for restitution of conjugal rights, in which, the respondent had filed her counter, expressing her willingness to join with the appellant, but subsequently, for the reasons best known to the appellant, he withdrew the said original petition and filed another original petition, in O.P.No.380 of 2010, for divorce. It is not the case of the appellant that the respondent is employed and earning sufficiently to lead a decent life, but on the other hand, the appellant himself described the respondent as a person of unsound mind. When the marriage is admitted and the respondent is only a home maker, the obligation is on the part of the appellant to maintain the respondent morally and legally. The Family Court itself has ordered only a paltry sum of Rs.2000/- per month towards interim maintenance, to the respondent, which, in any event cannot be said to be an excessive one. 7. In the light of the above findings, we could see no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.