Partly allowed

Ms. Padma Priya, v. Mr. M.Shriraman

Madras HC9 Mar 2016CMA/2905/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Full Bench modified the interim maintenance payable by the husband in pending matrimonial proceedings pending before the Family Court. It adjusted the monthly amount based on the wife's ailments and the conduct of the parties while directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Interim maintenance enhanced to Rs.10,000/month from August 2016; lower court directed to expedite trial of O.P.No.1838 of 2009 and O.P.No.1582 of 2010.

Ms. Padma Priya, Vs Mr. M.Shriraman — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.03.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶7

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2905 of 2015

¶8

Padma Priya

¶9

... Appellant/Petitioner

¶10

vs. M.Shriraman ...Respondent/Respondent

¶11

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order and decreetal order of the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai dated 08.03.2013 passed in I.A.No.3444 of 2011 in O.P.No.1838 of 2009 and seeking enhancement of the quantum of maintenance awarded as prayed for in the petition for maintenance.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.M.K.Kabir, Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Jayaraman

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.D.Rajagopal

¶14

J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.)

¶15

Aggrieved by the order dated 08.03.2013 passed by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.3444 of 2011 in O.P.No.1838 of 2009 granting lesser maintenance, the wife has come forward with the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶16

The III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, has awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as interim maintenance apart from litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/- and the maintenance amount was directed to be paid on or before 5^th of every English Calendar month.

¶17

The case of the appellant/wife is that the respondent/husband is drawing salary of more than Rs.60,000/per month and therefore, she is entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/per month as maintenance.

¶18

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

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband would submit that the respondent has filed a petition for divorce in O.P.No.1838 of 2009 and the same is pending. He would contend that the appellant/wife had removed Mangalyam more than once, when she and her husband, the respondent herein were living in a separate house and that false case has been registered against the respondent with an intention to cause mental torture. It is his further contention that the amount claimed as interim maintenance is exorbitant and that the respondent is willing to spend money towards maintenance of the child alone, but the appellant/wife is not entitled to get any amount, as she is responsible for the present situation.

¶20

On a perusal of the pleadings, the Trial Court, taking note of the fact that the appellant/wife has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in O.P.No.1582 of 2010 and the respondent/husband has filed a petition in O.P.No.1838 of 2009 seeking divorce, and also considering the aspect that though the respondent/husband has admitted that he was employed in HCL, the appellant/wife did not prove that he was earning a sum of Rs.60,000/- per month, directed the respondent/husband to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- as interim monthly maintenance to the appellant/wife from 20.04.2012 payable on or before 5^th of every calendar month, apart from litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/-.

¶21

The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. As there is a matrimonial issue pending between the appellant/wife and the respondent/husband for restitution of conjugal rights and dissolution of marriage respectively before the Family Court, a sum of Rs.8,000/- ordered as interim maintenance cannot be said to be excessive.

¶22

Both the parties agreed for early disposal of both the OPs. But, it is pleaded by Mr.Kabir, learned Senior Counsel, that the wife is suffering from serious ailments, for which, he produced medical records and pleaded that she needs some time to recuperate from the illness. We have considered the said plea and the respondent/husband is agreeable to participate in the day-to-day proceedings in the OPs filed by both sides from the appropriate date as may be fixed by this Court.

¶23

The wife seeks enhancement of maintenance. The husband wants early disposal of the petition for dissolution of marriage. The allegation of delay has been made by both sides. Considering the fact that the appellant/wife is living away from the respondent/husband along with a child and taking note of the cost of living, we are inclined to modify the payment of maintenance pending disposal of the two OPs, namely O.P.No.1582 of 2010 and O.P.No.1838 of 2009 in the manner herein below stated.

¶24

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

¶25

(i) the respondent/husband shall continue to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the appellant/wife till July 2016. He shall however pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month from August 2016 till the disposal of the Original Petitions pending before the Family Court, preferably within six months from 1st August 2016.

¶26

(ii) the III Additional Family Court, Chennai, is directed to take up the cases in O.P.No.1838 of 2009 and O.P.No.1582 of 2010 and proceed with the trial on a day-to-day basis and decide the same, as expeditiously as possible, in view of the multiple ailments of the appellant/wife as could be seen from the Medical Reports produced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/wife. It is also made clear that the matter shall not be adjourned beyond two working days at any point of time;

¶27

(iii) If, for any reason whatsoever, the matter prolongs at the behest of the appellant/wife, the further interim maintenance amount as ordered in paragraph 8(i) in an amount of Rs.10,000/- shall stand reduced to a sum of Rs.8,000/- w.e.f. 01.02.2017. In case, the adjournment is sought on and after 01.02.2017 at the behest of the respondent/husband, the interim maintenance amount shall stand enhanced to a sum of Rs.12,000/- w.e.f. 01.02.2017.

¶28

(iv) Adjournment shall be granted by the Trial Court only based on the petition filed by the parties and the Trial Court is requested to expedite the case;

¶29

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶32

//True Copy//

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

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

¶35

To :

¶36

The III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.

¶37

+1cc to Mr.D.Rajagopal, ADvocate Sr.15644

¶38

C.M.A.No.2905 of 2015

¶39

rsi(CO)
srg(31/03/2016)

¶40

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

Ms. Padma Priya, v. Mr. M.Shriraman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Padma Priya, v. Mr. M.Shriraman

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

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs S.Kavitha

The Branch Manager Vs Minor Kausalya

m/s. united India Insurance Vs Delbi

Mr.T.Tanaradjou, Vs The Union of India Rep. by

C.Krishnasamy Vs K.Selvaraj

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs R.Anuradha