Dismissed

G.Arulmani v. N.Padmapriya

Madras HC4 Dec 2020CRP/3927/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition challenging the interim maintenance order. The Court held that the Trial Court was justified in awarding Rs.10,000/- monthly to the wife and child, considering their livelihood needs, and saw no merit in intervening despite the appellant's contentions regarding income and assets.

What did the court decide?

The Revision Petition and connected Miscellaneous Petition are dismissed. No costs.

G.Arulmani Vs N.Padmapriya — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRP PD. No.3927 of 2018 and CMP No.21780 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04.12.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

CRP PD. No.3927 of 2018
and CMP No. 21780 of 2018
G.Arulmani .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. N.Padmapriya
2. Minor Sanjeeth ..Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
03.07.2018 passed in IA No.111 of 2017 in HMOP No.21 of 2016, on the
file of the Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ayyapparaja
For Respondents : No appearance

¶8

1/6

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

CRP PD. No.3927 of 2018 and CMP No.21780 of 2018

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This matter is taken up for hearing through Video-Conferencing. The husband who suffered an order for payment of interim

¶13

maintenance at the hands of the Sub Court, Kallakurichi, in an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending disposal of his

¶14

petition for divorce in HMOP No.21 of 2016, has come up with this

¶15

Revision, challenging the quantum of maintenance.

¶16

2. The respondents though served are not appearing either in person

¶17

or through counsel duly instructed.

¶18

Though the second respondent is a minor and he is not represented.

¶19

I see no impediment to proceed to dispose of the Revision as I do not find

¶20

any merit in the Revision. The respondents herein viz., the wife and child filed IA No.111 of 2017 in HMOP No.21 of 2016 seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.25,000/- for expenses for celebrating annual festivals. According to the petitioners, the respondent is a very rich

¶21

person, who has got two houses in Kallakurichi Town, apart from 5 acres of

¶22

2/6

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

CRP PD. No.3927 of 2018 and CMP No.21780 of 2018

¶25

land in Papanayagampatti Village. It is also claimed that the husband is carrying on various businesses in Pan broking, offset printing as well as finance at Kallakurichi Town. According to the petitioners, by his monthly income will not be less than a Lakh of Rupees.

¶26

This petition was resisted by the respondent contending that he was

¶27

doing coolly work in Tirupur and he is at present unemployed.

¶28

The learned Trial Judge after consideration of the pleadings concluded that the petitioner who is a MCA M.phil can earn enough to support the family. On the said ground, the learned Trial Judge granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- as monthly maintenance for the wife and the child, apart from Rs.15,000/- for litigation expenses. It is this order which is subject matter of challenging the Revision. I have heard Mr.V.Ayyapparaja,

¶29

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶30

Mr.V.Ayyapparaja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶31

3/6

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶33

CRP PD. No.3927 of 2018 and CMP No.21780 of 2018

¶34

would vehemently contend that there must be some reduction in the quantum as there is no proof of income. The learned Trial Judge has arrived at the quantum on the basis of the qualifications of the petitioner and his asset base. I do not think, the Trial Court could be faulted for coming to the said conclusion, since the petitioner himself has not placed any evidence to show that he is earning a lesser amount. Considering the present day living conditions, I find that a sum of Rs.10,000/- granted is very reasonable, considering the fact that the two persons have to maintain themselves out of

¶35

the said sum.

¶36

Hence I do not think that the order of the Trial Court needs interference at my hands in Revision. The Revision therefore fails and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶37

04.12.2020

¶38

jv Index:No Internet:Yes Speaking order

¶39

4/6

¶40

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶41

CRP PD. No.3927 of 2018 and CMP No.21780 of 2018

¶42

To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi,
Villupuram District.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.

¶43

5/6

¶44

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶45

CRP PD. No.3927 of 2018 and CMP No.21780 of 2018

¶46

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶47

¶48

CRP PD. No.3927 of 2018
and CMP No. 21780 of 2018
04.12.2020

¶49

6/6

¶50

http://www.judis.nic.in

G.Arulmani v. N.Padmapriya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Arulmani v. N.Padmapriya

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

V.P. Shanmugam Vs a. Palanisamy

Revathi Vs Rajendran

Munusamy Vs Pothu Ammal

K.P. Tamilkumaran Vs A.K. Palanisamy

V.G.Arun Vs Kuppayee

S.v.Ramasamy Vs M.Ramasamy