The High Court dismissed the second appeal and closed the connected civil revision petition. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose to interfere with the lower courts' findings on maintenance, noting that factum of marriage and income were questions of fact.
Second Appeal dismissed. Civil Revision Petition closed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 06.01.2017
Coram
The Hon'ble Dr.Justice G.Jayachandran
S.A.No.956 of 2009 and C.R.P.(NPD)No. 717 of 2011
S.A.No.956 of 2009:
T.Munirathnam
.. Appellant
/vs/
1.Bommi
2.Sonia
.. Respondents
C.R.P.(NPD) No.717 of 2011:
T.Munirathnam
.. Petitioner
/vs/
1.Bommi
2.Sonia
.. Respondents
Prayer in S.A.No.956 of 2009: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2009 passed in A.S.No.67 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Arni confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2007 passed in O.S.No.201 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arni.
Prayer in C.R.P.(NPD)No.717 of 2011: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code agains thte fair and
2
decretal order dated 02.02.2011 passed in E.P.No.81 of 2009 in O.S.No.201 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arni.
For Appellant/Petitioner :Mr.K.Govi Ganesan
(in both cases)
For Respondents/
Respondents :Mr.V.Raghavachari for R1 and R2 (in both cases)
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
The defendant is the appellant before this Court. The appeal is directed against the concurrent finding of the Courts below.
The first plaintiff is the wife of the defendant and the second plaintiff is the daughter of the first plaintiff. They filed the suit in O.S.No.201 of 2001 seeking maintenance against the defendant/ appellant alleging that the first plaintiff and defendant got married on 17.10.1985 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs and from the wedlock, the second plaintiff was born. After the marriage, the defendant got employment in Food Corporation of India and left the family at Arni and stayed at Arakonam pursuant to his employment. Thereafter, he devloped acquaintance with some other lady and neglected the first
3
plaintiff. Hence, the suit for maintenance of Rs.1000/- p.m. for the first plaintiff and Rs.500/- p.m. for the second plaintiff.
4
second appeal, served notice to the respondents/plaintiffs to find out whether there is any question of law substantially to interfere with the concurrent finding of the Courts below.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that the factum of marrige and birth of the second plaintiff and the income of the appellant are all questions of fact, which has been held against the appellant/defendant and there is no question of law involved in this case for interfering under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.
5
grounds of appeal raised by the appellant, this Court finds that there is no substantial question of law involved in this case to interfere with the finding of the Courts below and the finding of the Courts is reasonable and requires no inference and the second appeal is libale to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.
06.01.2017
ari
6
To
7
Dr.G.Jayachandran, J.
ari
S.A.No.956 of 2009 and C.R.P.(NPD)No.717 of 2011
06.01.2017
8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is any substantial question of law involved to interfere with the concurrent finding regarding maintenance.
Whether the trial courts erred in finding the defendant liable for maintenance despite allegations of a prior marriage.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
T.Munirathnam
1.Bommi
2.Sonia
G.Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
