Dismissed

Mathusuthanan v. Priya

Madras HC15 Oct 2020CRP/4195/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a Civil Revision under Article 227 challenging an interim maintenance order of Rs. 30,000 per month under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the wife and minor child. The Court upheld the trial Court's finding despite the petitioner's lower salary claim.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is dismissed; the trial Court's order awarding Rs. 30,000 per month maintenance is affirmed.

Mathusuthanan Vs Priya — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRP (PD) No.4195 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15.10.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

CRP (PD) No.4195 of 2018 and CMP Nos.23062 of 2018 and 21416 of 2019

¶7

Mathusuthanan ... Petitioner
Vs
1. Priya
2. Balaji ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer: The Civil Revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 30.07.2018 made in I.A.No.8 of 2018 in H.M.O.P No.120 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Villupuram.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Arun Dhattan

¶10

For Respondents : Mrs.R.Divya

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This revision is by the husband challenging the order for interim

¶13

maintenance passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶14

Pending proceedings for divorce filed by the husband in

¶15

1/5

¶16

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶17

CRP (PD) No.4195 of 2018

¶18

H.M.O.P No.120 of 2017 on the ground of desertion, the wife filed an application for interim maintenance claiming that the husband an MBA Graduate is employed as an Senior Executive in a Software Company and drawing a salary of Rupees one lakh per month. The wife sought for a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month as maintenance for her self and the minor child

¶19

who is now about five years old.

¶20

The husband resisted the claim contending that the wife is also

¶21

employed. It is the further contention of the husband that he is not drawing

¶22

a lakh of rupees per month as alleged by the wife. He, however, did not

¶23

disclose his salary in the counter filed before the trial Court.

¶24

The trial Court upon consideration of the circumstances and the

¶25

qualification of the husband, awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month as

¶26

interim maintenance for the wife and the minor child. Aggrieved, the

¶27

husband has come up with this revision.

¶28

I have heard Mr.R.Arun Dhattan, learned counsel appearing for

¶29

the petitioner and Mrs.R.Divya, learned counsel appearing for the

¶30

2/5

¶31

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶32

CRP (PD) No.4195 of 2018

¶33

respondents.

¶34

The counsel for the petitioner has produced a salary certificate

¶35

said to have been issued by the company showing that the petitioner is drawing only a sum of Rs.18,870/- per month as salary. There is no explanation for non production of th e salary certificate before the trial Court. Since the designation of the petitioner husband given as Senior Executive, I am unable to take into account the salary reflected as a correct figure. The trial Court has rightly considered the fact that the minor child

¶36

has also to be maintained by the wife and awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month as maintenance.

¶37

I am of the considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances

¶38

of the case on hand, the award of Rs.30,000/- asonterim monthly maintanance cannot be considered to be on higher side. The boy is also five years old and there are educational expenses which have to be taken care of. I therefore do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order of the trial Court. The revision therefore fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No

¶39

3/5

¶40

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶41

CRP (PD) No.4195 of 2018

¶42

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶43

15.10.2020

¶44

vum Index: Yes/No Speaking order / Non speaking order To

¶45

The Principal Subordinate Judge, Villupuram.

¶46

4/5

¶47

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶48

CRP (PD) No.4195 of 2018

¶49

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶50

vum

¶51

CRP (PD) No.4195 of 2018 and
CMP Nos.23062 of 2018 and 21416 of 2019
15.10.2020

¶52

5/5

¶53

http://www.judis.nic.in

Mathusuthanan v. Priya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathusuthanan v. Priya

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

Zainab Sabira Vs S.Imtiaz Ahmed

Kanthamma Vs Sarojammal

C. Sekar Vs Subramani (Deceased)

Usain Vs N.Samboornam

Umamaheswari Vs Kannu @Kandasamy Gounder

D.Gunasekaran Vs P.Sankaranarayanan