Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3683 (MAD)

S. Ganesh v. A. Periyanayagi

2014-10-07

ARUNA JAGADEESAN, M.JAICHANDREN

body2014
Judgment M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Since both the above appeals are arising out of the common order passed by the Family Court, Coimbatore, dated 14.8.2013, the said appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellant in the above appeals is the husband of the respondent in the appeals. Their marriage had been solemnized, on 15.11.1999. A male child had been born to them, out of the wedlock, on 7.10.2000. Thereafter, disputes had arisen between them. In such circumstances, the appellant had filed H.M.O.P.No.1016 of 2009, before the Family Court, Coimbatore, praying for a decree of divorce. 3. During the pendency of H.M.O.P.No.1016 of 2009, the appellant had filed I.A.No.1209 of 2011 for payment of maintenance and certain expenses, by the respondent. While so, the respondent had also filed I.A.No.35 of 2011, for the payment of the maintenance and certain other expenses, as prayed for therein. 4. The Family Court, Coimbatore, had passed a common order, dated 14.8.2013, dismissing the application filed by the appellant, in I.A.No.1209 of 2011 and allowing the application filed by the respondent, in I.A.No.35 of 2011, directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month to the respondent, as interim maintenance, from the date of the application. It had been further directed that the amount of interim maintenance payable every month shall be paid, by the appellant, to the respondent, on or before the 10th of every English calendar month. Further, a sum of Rs.3,000/- had been awarded to the respondent, as litigation expenses. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 14.8.2013, the present appeals had been filed by the appellant herein. 5. It is noted that the appellant had raised the contention that the respondent is having valuable immovable ancestral properties worth several crores of rupees and that she is also getting substantial income from the said properties. The appellant had marked the pattas relating to the said properties, as Exhibits R.2 to R.5. However, the Family Court had found, from the said documents, that the immovable properties stood in the name of Aruchamy, the father of the respondent. Further, nothing had been shown on behalf of the appellant to substantiate the claim that the respondent had certain rights in the said properties. The appellant had not been in a position to prove that the respondent had substantial independent income. Further, nothing had been shown on behalf of the appellant to substantiate the claim that the respondent had certain rights in the said properties. The appellant had not been in a position to prove that the respondent had substantial independent income. On the other hand, the Family Court had found that the appellant is a Diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering and that he is in good health. Therefore, relying on the decision of this Court, reported in Ramesh Vs. Ambigeswari (2013 (3) MKJ 892), it has been held that the appellant would not be entitled to maintenance, if he remained idle without any employment, as per his choice. Based on the educational qualifications and the age of the appellant, his monthly income has been notionally fixed as Rs.20,000/-. Based on the same, the Family Court, Coimbatore, had directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-, per month, as interim maintenance to the respondent. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, we are of the view that the appellant has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the order of the Family Court, Coimbatore, dated 14.8.2013, made in I.A.No.1209 of 2011 and I.A.No.35 of 2011, in H.M.O.P. No.1016 of 2009. We do not find any infirmity in the said order. As such, we are of the view that the present appeals are devoid of merits and therefore, they are liable to be dismissed. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.No.2 of 2013 is closed.