Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1124 (MAD)

L. Saravanan v. C. Sangeetha

2015-02-25

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

body2015
Judgment 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed praying this Court to call for the records pertaining to I.A.No.5 of 2014 in H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2012 dated 13.2.2014 on the file of Family Court, Madurai and to set aside the same as illegal. 2. In H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2012, which is filed by the Petitioner/husband herein for divorce, the respondent/wife had taken out an application in I.A.No.305 of 2012 for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/- p.m. and Rs.35,000/- towards educational expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses. It was stated by the wife that daughter born out of their wedlock is studying in K.G. Class and she need to have educational expenses. The husband is a Legal Practitioner and that he has only a fluctuating income. 3. The learned Family Court Judge, Madurai after hearing both parties and considering the evidence, allowed the interlocutory application directing the Petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/-p.m. to the Petitioner and her daughter towards interim maintenance from January 2013 till the disposal of the application. The respondent was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses and another sum of Rs.5,000/- towards educational expenses for each term. Because of the non payment of interim maintenance and allowances as stated supra, the respondent herein/wife has filed I.A. No. 5 of 2014 for stay of all further proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2012 till the payment of entire amount as ordered in I.A.No.305 of 2012. Admittedly, there was arrears of maintenance to be paid by the Petitioner herein for more than one and a half years. Therefore the Family Court Judge, Madurai allowed and Petition and struck of the defense of the Petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed. 4. Though notice was served on the respondent and originally Mr.Rajaraman, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent, later on, he has withdrawn his vakalath. Therefore the Petitioner was directed to serve private notice to the respondent and accordingly the respondent was served and her name was also printed in the cause-list. But there is no representation for the respondent either in person or through her counsel. 5. Therefore the Petitioner was directed to serve private notice to the respondent and accordingly the respondent was served and her name was also printed in the cause-list. But there is no representation for the respondent either in person or through her counsel. 5. According to the Petitioner, from January 2013 to January 2015, for 25 months, the total arrears of maintenance is Rs.1 lakh (Rs.4000x25)with litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- along with educational expenses of Rs.5000/- per term(for six terms, it is Rs.30,000/-). Therefore the total arrears comes to Rs.1,35,000/-.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that already a sum of Rs.12,000/- was paid pending proceedings to the wife. After deducting the amount already paid, the outstanding due is Rs.1,23,000/-, for which the learned counsel for the Petitioner undertakes to pay the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Petitioner is directed to deposit the above said amount into the credit of H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2012 before the Lower Court within the time stipulated above. On payment of such arrears, the trial Court is directed to restore the O.P to file. The learned Trial Judge is further directed to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2012 on or before 31.10.2015 without seeking further extension of time. The parties are also directed to cooperate with the Court in the disposal of the case. 6. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.