Dismissed

Radhakrishnan v. Muthuselvi, F/25

Madras HC11 Oct 2011CRP(MD)/1909/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an interim maintenance order of Rs.3,000 per month directed against the husband. The High Court upheld the lower court's decision as reasonable, discarded the argument of insufficient means, remitted the main divorce case for disposal by November 2011, and dismissed the connected miscellaneous petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order confirming interim maintenance of Rs.3,000 per month directed against the revisor/wife was confirmed. Main divorce suit remitted for disposal by November 2011.

Radhakrishnan Vs Muthuselvi, F/25 — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.10.2011

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION(PD)((MD) No.1909 of 2011 and

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011

¶6

Radhakrishnan

¶7

.. Petitioner/Respondent

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Muthuselvi

¶10

.. Respondent/Plaintiff

¶11

Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 18.07.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.11 of 2011 in H.M.O.P.No.53 of 2010 by the Sub Court, Valliyoor.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Palanivelayutham

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is to the order dated 18.07.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.11 of 2011 in H.M.O.P.No.53 of 2010 by the Sub Court, Valliyoor.

¶15

The revision petitioner herein as petitioner has filed H.M.O.P.No.53 of 2010 on the file of the Court below praying to grant a decree of divorce, wherein the present respondent has been shown as respondent. During pendency of the same, the present respondent as petitioner has filed Interlocutory Application No.11 of 2011 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying to direct the respondent therein to give interim monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per mensum and also Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The Court below after considering the divergent contentions putforth on either side has allowed the petition and thereby directed the respondent therein to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per mensum as interim monthly maintenance and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses. Against the order passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the respondent/petitioner as revision petitioner.

¶16

Considering the nature of the relief sought for in H.M.O.P.No.53 of 2010 as well as the nature of the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.11 of 2011, notice need not be sent to the respondent and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the revision petitioner has not possessed of sufficient wherewithal so as to give interim monthly maintenance as well as litigation expenses to the

¶19

¶20

respondent/petitioner and whereas the respondent/petitioner is having sufficient means to maintain herself and the Court below without considering the main averments made in the counter has erroneously passed the impugned order and therefore the impugned order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.

¶21

It is an admitted fact that the revision petitioner as petitioner has filed H.M.O.P.No.53 of 2010 on the file of the Court below praying to dissolve the marriage held in between him and the respondent. It is also equally an admitted fact that the respondent herein as petitioner has filed Interlocutory Application No.11 of 2011 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the reliefs sought for therein.

¶22

The main defence taken on the side of the revision petitioner is that he has not possessed of sufficient wherewithal to give interim monthly maintenance as well as litigation expenses to the respondent. The Court below after considering the status of the respondent has directed the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per mensum towards interim monthly maintenance and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses. Considering the present trend of life, the amounts fixed by the Court below as interim monthly maintenance as well as litigation expenses are not high and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.11 of 2011 in H.M.O.P.No.53 of 2010 by the Sub Court, Valliyoor is confirmed. However the Sub Court, Valliyoor is strictly directed to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.53 of 2010 before the end of November, 2011 and report the same to the Registry without fail. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(Records) /True Copy/

¶26

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

The Subordinate Judge, Valliyoor. Copy to:-

¶29

The Section Officer, Judicial Department, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai

¶30

smn

¶31

rl/3c – 14.10.2011

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1909 of 2011

¶34

and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011

Radhakrishnan v. Muthuselvi, F/25

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhakrishnan v. Muthuselvi, F/25

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs Settukumar

Sabruhan Beevi Vs Tamilnadu Ashpestos and Cement

Alagar, S/O.Mari, Vs Chellachamy, S/O.Ponnuthevar

Ponnumony Vs Hentry

Gandhimathi Vs R.George S/O.D.M.Raja

C.Petchikumar Vs S.Chandra @ Jeyalakshmi