Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1438 (MAD)

K. Rajalakshmi v. A. Karthik

2015-03-12

K.KALYANASUNDARAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of interim maintenance passed by the learned Principal Family Judge, Chennai on 28.04.2014 in I.A. No. 3311 of 2012 in O.P. No. 2646 of 2012. 2. There were two Original Petitions filed before the Family Court, Chennai, one by the husband/respondent herein in O.P. No. 2646 of 2012 praying for dissolution of the marriage dated 02.02.1998 and the other filed by the wife/appellant herein in O.P. No. 2842 of 2012 for the very same relief of dissolution of the marriage dated 02.08.1998 solemnised between them. 3. Pending O.P. No. 2646 of 2012 filed by the husband/respondent herein, the wife/appellant herein has filed I.A. No. 3311 of 2012 praying for grant of interim maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 3311 of 2012, it was contended by the wife/appellant herein that her husband/respondent herein deserted her in 2006 and she along with the minor son are residing with her parents. It is further claimed that since she became a burden to her parents, she had taken up an employment in a private company for a monthly salary of Rs.16,000/- per month from January 2012. However, on 30.09.2012, she was relieved from her employment and as on date, she is unemployed without any means to survive. On the other hand, the husband/respondent is an I.A.S. officer and presently working as Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu. The husband/respondent has his own house at Kilpauk and Anna Nagar, Chennai besides he is in possession of various landed properties. As the husband/respondent herein is having the means to pay maintenance, she prayed for grant of maintenance amount of Rs.40,000/- per month and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses. 4. The respondent/husband filed a counter affidavit in I.A. No. 3311 of 2012 contending that the wife/appellant has not been relieved from her employment, as alleged, but she is still in employment earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. The allegation that the wife/appellant is not having any financial support for her survival is untenable. The allegation that the husband/respondent is earning Rs.80,000/- per month is false and incorrect. In any event, the amount of maintenance claimed by the wife/appellant is baseless and exorbitant. Therefore, the husband/respondent herein prayed for dismissal of the application. 5. The allegation that the wife/appellant is not having any financial support for her survival is untenable. The allegation that the husband/respondent is earning Rs.80,000/- per month is false and incorrect. In any event, the amount of maintenance claimed by the wife/appellant is baseless and exorbitant. Therefore, the husband/respondent herein prayed for dismissal of the application. 5. The Family Court, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, particularly Ex.P3 produced by the wife/petitioner herein to show the salary paid to her husband/respondent herein for the period from 24.06.2006 to 31.12.2012 concluded that the gross salary of the husband/respondent is Rs.1,26,300/- and after deductions, the net salary paid to him is Rs.75,475/-. The family court also took into consideration the fact that the wife/appellant did not quit her temporary employment on her own but she was relieved from such job as the assignments given to her has been completed. Therefore, having regard to the wherewithal of the husband/respondent herein to pay interim maintenance to the wife/appellant and his financial status, the family Court directed the husband/respondent to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month to the wife/appellant and Rs.5,000/- to the minor son towards interim maintenance from the date of the petition viz., 04.12.2012 and Rs.10,000/- was ordered to be paid towards litigation expenses. According to the wife/ appellant, such amount ordered to be paid by the Family Court is very low and not befitting to the financial status of the husband/respondent herein, therefore, she filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal praying for enhancement of the maintenance amount. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed. 7. It is not in dispute that the marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 02.02.1998 and out of such wedlock, a male child was born on 01.08.1999, who is presently studying VIII Standard. During the year 2005, misunderstanding arose between the spouses. There were exchange of notices between the appellant and the respondent. Ultimately, the husband/respondent herein filed O.P. No. 2646 of 2012 and the wife/appellant herein filed O.P. No. 2842 of 2012, both for the relief of dissolution of the marriage dated 02.08.1998 solemnised between them on the ground of dissolution and cruelty against each other. Both the original petitions are pending before the Family Court, Chennai. Ultimately, the husband/respondent herein filed O.P. No. 2646 of 2012 and the wife/appellant herein filed O.P. No. 2842 of 2012, both for the relief of dissolution of the marriage dated 02.08.1998 solemnised between them on the ground of dissolution and cruelty against each other. Both the original petitions are pending before the Family Court, Chennai. Pending O.P. No. 2646 of 2012 filed by the husband/respondent herein, the wife/appellant has filed I.A. No. 3311 of 2012 praying for interim maintenance at Rs.40,000/- per month and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses. The Family Court, after appreciating the rival claim of the parties and the other attending circumstances and on consideration of Exs. P2 to P4 filed by the wife/appellant to show the earning capacity of the husband/respondent herein arrived at a conclusion that the husband/respondent herein is earning Rs.1,26,300/- and after deductions, the net salary paid to him is Rs.75,475/-. The family Court also concluded that earlier the wife/ appellant was employed temporarily, but she was relieved from such employment on completion of the assignment given to her and she is not employed any where. Under those circumstances, the Family Court, having regard to the earnings of the husband/respondent herein granted interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the wife/appellant and Rs.5,000/- to the minor son towards interim maintenance from the date of the petition viz., 04.12.2012 and Rs.10,000/- was ordered to be paid towards litigation expenses. 8. The learned counsel for the wife/appellant highlighted upon the status of the husband/respondent, his earning and he being an I.A.S., officer is bound to maintain the wife/appellant befitting to his financial status pending disposal of the Original Petition, however, the Family Court did not consider it while granting interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the wife/appellant and Rs.5,000/- to the minor child. Further, having regard to the nature of the litigation between the parties, the amount awarded by the Family Court towards litigation expenses is low and it has to be enhanced. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the husband/respondent herein would contend that the husband/respondent is prepared to accept the claim made by the wife/appellant herein towards permanent alimony and therefore, the interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court need not be enhanced especially when the husband/respondent is having an ailing mother to support. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the husband/respondent herein would contend that the husband/respondent is prepared to accept the claim made by the wife/appellant herein towards permanent alimony and therefore, the interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court need not be enhanced especially when the husband/respondent is having an ailing mother to support. In any event, any further enhancement in the maintenance amount or litigation expenses awarded by the Family Court will have a serious implication on the financial position of the husband/ respondent herein and therefore he prayed for dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 10. Having regard to the submission of the husband/respondent that he is prepared to accept the claim made by the wife/appellant towards permanent alimony and the hardship expressed by the counsel for both sides, we are of the opinion that the maintenance amount ordered by the Family Court in favour of the wife/appellant herein can be enhanced to Rs.25,000/- as against Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Family Court. However, we feel that the amount of Rs.5,000/- ordered towards interim maintenance of the minor needs no interference. Similarly, we feel that the sum of Rs.10,000/- ordered by the Family Court towards litigation expenses can be enhanced to Rs.20,000/- having regard to the nature of litigation between the parties. To this extent, we are inclined to modify the award passed by the Family Court. 11. The learned counsel for the parties pleaded before us that the Original Petitions filed by them are pending before the Family Court from the year 2012 and a direction shall be issued to the Family Court to take up the Original Petitions at an early date having regard to the nature of employment of the husband/respondent so that the litigation will attain a finality without any further delay. 12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed modifying the order passed by the Family Court by enhancing the interim maintenance awarded to the wife/appellant from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- and the litigation expenses from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. It is made clear that there is no change in the interim maintenance of Rs.5000/- awarded to the minor child. No costs. 13. It is made clear that there is no change in the interim maintenance of Rs.5000/- awarded to the minor child. No costs. 13. Having regard to such submission made by the counsel for the parties, we direct the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai to take up O.P. No. 2646 of 2012 and O.P. No. 2842 of 2012 pending on its file and dispose it of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.