Appellant appealed the Subordinate Court's order granting reduced interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000 to the wife and minor son out of wedlock, citing inability to pay. Upholding the lower court's assessment of financial status, the appeal was dismissed.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed with no costs. The main proceedings directed to be disposed within six months.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 07.03.2019
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.M.A.No.1798 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.5823 of 2019
M.Prabakaran .. Appellant / Respondent vs. 1.E.Punitha 2.Minor Ajay rep. by his mother and natural guardian Punitha/R1 .. Respondents / Petitioners
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the fair and decretal order dated 20.03.2018 made in I.A.No.5 of 2018 in H.M.O.P.No.101 of 2015 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ponneri.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Arun Kumar JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
Appellant is the respondent in the application filed in I.A.No.5 of 2018. The said application has been filed in the divorce petition filed by the appellant. Though the first respondent sought for Rs.15,000/- as interim maintenance for her and Rs.10,000/- for the second respondent/minor son, the Court below has awarded only a sum of Rs.8,000/- for both put together. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed.
2.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant is not a man of means. He further submits that the appellant is not in a position to make payment and therefore, the order of the Court below requires interference.
3.The fact that the first respondent is the wife and the second respondent/child is born out of wedlock is not in dispute. Though the first respondent has claimed higher amount, less than 50% alone has been granted by the Court below. The abovesaid amount has been fixed taking into consideration the income and financial status of both parties. In fact, litigation expenses was also declined.
4.In such view of the mater, we do not find any error in the order of the Court below, warranting interference. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
5.Taking into consideration the pendency of the case in H.M.O.P.No.101 of 2015 for nearly four years, the Subordinate Court, Ponneri is directed to dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mmi To The Subordinate Judge, Ponneri. +2 ccs to Mr.R.Arun Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.36641(23/04/2019) C.M.A.No.1798 of 2019 VG-II(CO) SSM(10/04/2019). SSM(23/04/2019).
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court's award of reduced interim maintenance, considering the appellant's financial impecuniosity, warrants interference.
Whether the appellate court should quash the order fixing the maintenance at Rs. 8,000 for the wife and minor son.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Prabakaran
E. Punitha
Minor Ajay
M.M. Sundresh
C. Saravanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
