Dismissed

S. Vijayakumar v. K. Mehkala

Madras HC11 Apr 2018CMA/722/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed the husband's appeal against the Family Court's order granting interim maintenance of Rs.10,000 per month to the wife. The Court held that pending allegations of-concealment of prior marriage must be decided on evidence in the main petition, and such disputes cannot justify withholding interim maintenance required for the pendency of litigation. The Court found the

What did the court decide?

Interim maintenance of Rs.10,000 per month awarded by the Family Court is confirmed; additional interim costs dismissed.

S. Vijayakumar Vs K. Mehkala — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE JUDICATE OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED : 11.04.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

C.M.A.No.722 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.6202 of 2018 S.Vijayakumar ... Appellant Vs. K.Mehkala ... Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 13.07.2017 in I.A.No.234 of 2016 in H.M.O.P.No.614 of 2014 passed by the Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore. For Appellant : Mr.K.S.karthik Raja For Respondent (Cavetor) : Mr.D.R.Arun Kmar JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBBIAH, J.,)

¶7

This Appeal has been filed by the appellant/husband challenging the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month awarded by the Additional Principal Family Court at Coimbatore in the application in I.A.No.234 of 2016 in H.M.O.P.No.614 of 2014 filed by the respondent/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶8

2.The marriage between the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife was solemnized on 31.08.2014 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. Due to the wedlock, a child was born. Subsequently, due to the matrimonial disputes, the appellant/husband has filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.614 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Principal Family Court at Coimbatore under Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking to annal the marriage, stating that the respondent/wife had already got married to one Sivakumar on 11.07.2013 and at the time of marriage with the appellant, she was pregnant and fraudulently suppressing all those facts, she was given in

¶9

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

¶10

marriage to the appellant. But, the respondent/wife had denied the said allegations, by filing a counter stating that though she had married one Sivakumar on 11.07.2013, subsequently she got divorce from the said Sivakumar in H.M.O.P.No.79 of 2014 on the file of the Sub-Court at Udumalaipet, by order dated 30.09.2014; that prior to the marriage with the appellant, those facts were also informed to the family members of the appellant. Thus, the respondent/wife sought for dismissal of the OP.

¶11

3.Pending the main OP, the respondent/wife has filed an Interlocutory application in I.A.No.234 of 2016 in H.M.O.P.No.614 of 2015 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking to direct the appellant/husband to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month to her towards interim maintenance, stating that the appellant/husband is working as Deputy Manager in VE Commercial Vehicles at Indur, Madhyapradesh and getting salary above Rs.1,50,000/- per month and he owns a house in Ondipudur, Coimbatore and doing finance business and earning an income of Rs.50,000/- per month. Thus, the respondent/wife sought for interim maintenance.

¶12

4.But, the said interim maintenance application was resisted by the appellant/husband by filing a counter, stating that it is incorrect to state that he is earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month. Further, he is earning only a meagre sum as salary and he has to maintain his aged mother. Moreover, the respondent/wife is a capable person to maintain herself and the appellant/husband is not having surplus amount. Thus, he sought for dismissal of the interim maintenance application.

¶13

5.The Trial Court, after analysing the entire evidence, has passed an order directing the appellant/husband to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent/wife towards interim maintenance. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/husband.

¶14

6.Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant/husband submitted that even before the marriage, the respondent/wife had got married to one Sivakumar and suppressing the same, she was given in marriage to the appellant/husband. Further, the appellant/husband has already taken out an application in I.A.No.318 of 2016 for subjecting the respondent and the child to DNA test and the said application was allowed; but, the DNA report is yet to be received. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellant/husband submitted that he would pay the interim maintenance subject to the result of the DNA test.

¶15

7.But, We are not inclined to accept the above said submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is a

¶16

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

¶17

matter for evidence and it could be adjudicated only in the main OP and the same cannot be a ground to refuse to pay the interim maintenance. We are of the opinion that the appellant/husband has to maintain the respondent/wife and the child during the pendency of the litigation. Hence, in the interest of justice, We are of the opinion that the sum of Rs.10,000/- per month awarded by the Court below as maintenance to the respondent/wife appears to be reasonable. We do not find any merit in the present appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶19

s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
ssv
To,
The Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court , Coimbatore.
+1 CC to Mr.D.R. Arunkumar, Advocate sr 26960.
+1 CC to Mr.K.s. Karthik Raja, Advocate sr 26699.
C.M.A.No.722 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No.6202 of 2018
KJI(CO)
SP(29/05/2018)

¶20

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

S. Vijayakumar v. K. Mehkala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Vijayakumar v. K. Mehkala

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

Indira Vadivelu Vs S.Mohana

C.Samayambigai Vs S.Anbazagan

M/S.Kaveri Piping Systems Pvt. Vs Mr.Jeetendra Lodha (Huf)

K.Suganthani Vs P.Kirubakaran

E.M.Karthik, Vs The District Collector

S.Sikander Vs Tamilnadu State Human Rights