Dismissed

R. Kabeerdas v. P.R. Jayanthi

Madras HC21 Jan 2019CRP/143/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 226, the High Court of Madras examined an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner challenged the maintenance quantum granted to his wife, claiming she had sufficient means. The Court rejected the challenges, held no interference was required, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

R. Kabeerdas Vs P.R. Jayanthi — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.01.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

C.R.P. (PD) No. 143 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No. 725 of 2018
R.Kabeerdas ...Petitioner
Vs
P.R.Jayanthi ...Respondent

¶7

Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal of the Learned Subordinate Judge, Udhagamandalam in I.A.No.25 of 2017 in H.M.O.P.No.31 of 2016, dated 23.03.2017 and allow this Civil Revision Petition.

¶8

For Petitioners : M/s.J.Franklin For respondents : Ms.G.Annapoorani for M/s.Poongulali

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The fact that the respondent is the wife of the petitioner is not under dispute. The petitioner herein challenged the order under Section 24 of the

¶11

Hindu Marriage Act whereby a sum of Rs.10,000/- was granted as maintenance for the children of the respondent herein.

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent herein has sufficient means to maintain herself and as such the Trial Court was not justified in granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. He would further submit that he does not possess

¶15

sufficient income to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-.

¶16

The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand would submit that, she had absolutely no means to maintain herself and since she is also now maintaining her two children and spending a considerable amount towards their education and daily expenses, the amount of Rs.10,000/- was very paltry and as such no interference is required. The learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner herein has not produced any documents to substantiate that she had independent means of income. Even otherwise, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is not gainfully employed anywhere and as such, there is no infirmity in the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Udhaghamandalam.

¶17

I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the

¶18

respective counsels.

¶19

Though the petitioner has raised certain grounds in his counter to the application made by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act,

¶20

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶21

¶22

he had not produced any documents to substantiate that the respondent herein possessed of means to maintain herself. It is a settled proposition of law that when the relationship of a husband and wife is not in dispute, a Hindu husband is bound to maintain his wife in the absence of any means for her to maintain herself. Such a maintenance amount should be in conformity with the

¶23

expenditure required for the bare necessities of the wife.

¶24

In the present case, it is not in dispute that the respondent herein is not only taking care of herself but also the expenses of her two children. Though this Court is not convinced that a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month will be sufficient to maintain all the three persons, since the respondent had not chosen to file an application questioning the quantum of maintenance, I am constrained to confirm the order passed by the Trial Court granting the maintenance of Rs.10,000/per month.

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

¶27

M.S.RAMESH.,J mrm

¶28

In view of the above observations, no interference is required in the order under challenge in the present Revision. Accordingly, the present Civil

¶29

Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected

¶30

miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

21.01.2019
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
mrm
C.R.P. (PD) No. 143 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No. 725 of 2018
21.01.2019

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

R. Kabeerdas v. P.R. Jayanthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Kabeerdas v. P.R. Jayanthi

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

Thulasimani Vs Maheswari

M.Mohamed Bathusha Vs D.Sivaprakasam

Vinod Vs Minor Dhakshan

Senthil Kumar Vs Meerabai

M.D.Mukund Arvind Vs K.Bhoopathy

Minor Ganesh S/O. Late Vs Shanmugam