Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 4133 (MAD)

M. Ravichandran v. P. Mahalakshmi

2017-12-05

A.SELVAM, P.KALAIYARASAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : A. Selvam, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 10.03.016 passed in I.A.No.639 of 2015 by the Family Court at Chennai. 2. The appellant herein, as petitioner, has filed O.P.No.2860 of 2014 on the file of the trial Court, praying to pass a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, wherein, the present respondent has been shown as respondent. 3. During pendency of the same, the respondent in O.P.No.2860 of 2014, as petitioner, has filed I.A.No.639 of 2015 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, praying to direct the respondent therein to pay interim monthly maintenance; litigation expenses and also educational expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively. 4. The trial Court,, after considering the available evidence on record, has allowed the petition in part and thereby directed the respondent therein to pay interim monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs.8000/- and also awarded litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.8,000/- by way of passing the impugned order and the same is being challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent has repeatedly contended to the effect that the appellant/respondent has been suffering from paralytic attack and not earning anything and under the said circumstances, he cannot be compelled to pay interim monthly maintenance and litigation expenses and further, the respondent/wife has been working in a software company and thereby earning attractive salary and since, the respondent/wife is having sufficient means to maintain herself, the present petition is not legally maintainable and the trial Court, without considering the contentions put forth on the side of the appellant/respondent, has erroneously passed the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner has contended that the respondent/petitioner has been doing service on contractual basis, whereas, the appellant/respondent is having immovable properties and thereby getting rental income and the trial Court, after considering the overall evidence available on record, has rightly passed the impugned order and the same does not require any interference. 7. It is an admitted fact that the appellant/respondent, as petitioner, has filed O.P.No.2860 of 2014, on the file of the trial Court for getting a decree of divorce on two grounds, namely, desertion and cruelty. 7. It is an admitted fact that the appellant/respondent, as petitioner, has filed O.P.No.2860 of 2014, on the file of the trial Court for getting a decree of divorce on two grounds, namely, desertion and cruelty. During pendency of the same, the respondent/wife has filed I.A.No.639 of 2015 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. After considering the divergent contentions raised on either side, the trial Court has passed the impugned order. 8. On the side of the appellant/respondent, two points have been raised. The first and foremost point is that the appellant/respondent is suffering from paralytic attack and not earning any money and therefore, he cannot be compelled to pay interim monthly maintenance to the respondent/wife. The second ground is that the respondent/wife has been working in software company and thereby earning attractive salary so as to maintain herself. As mentioned supra, the respondent/petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the appellant/respondent. 9. The main attack made on the side of the appellant/respondent is that he has been suffering from paralytic attack and not earning anything. Even though such a plea has been taken on the side of the appellant/respondent, no acceptable document has been forthcoming. Since no acceptable document has been forthcoming so as to substantiate the contention put forth on the side of the appellant/respondent, the same cannot be accepted. 10. The second ground urged on the side of the appellant/respondent is that the respondent/petitioner is having sufficient means to maintain herself. For the purpose of proving the said aspect also, no trustworthy document has been forthcoming. Under such circumstances, the second ground also goes out without merit. 11. The trial Court has awarded Rs.8000/- per mensem towards interim monthly maintenance. 12. Considering the present trend of life and also considering the fact that the respondent/wife has been working on contractual basis in a software company, this Court is inclined to modify the quantum of interim monthly maintenance as stated infra. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. The appellant/respondent is directed to pay interim monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) to the respondent/petitioner from the date of filing of I.A.No.639 of 2015 with the above modification, I.A.No.639 of 2015 is allowed in part. In respect of litigation expenses granted by the trial Court, no modification is required. The appellant/respondent is directed to pay interim monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) to the respondent/petitioner from the date of filing of I.A.No.639 of 2015 with the above modification, I.A.No.639 of 2015 is allowed in part. In respect of litigation expenses granted by the trial Court, no modification is required. The trial Court is directed to dispose of O.P.No.2860 of 2014 before the end of January 2018 and report the same to the Registry without fail. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.