Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by a husband aggrieved by an order fixing monthly maintenance and EMI contribution in a divorce case where he admitted high income but failed to produce salary slips. The High Court dismissed the appeal.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed at the admission stage. No costs.
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 : 10.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
C.M.A.No.3206 of 2021
Manikandan ...Appellant/Petitioner
-vs-
Vasavi
...Respondent/Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, against the Fair and decreetal order passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Coimbatore, in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in HMOP.No.410/2019 dated 18.01.2021.
For Appellant : Mr.C.B.Muralikrishnan for M/s.V.Vijayakumar
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by T.RAJA, J.)
The matter was listed to-day under the caption, 'for admission.'
Divorce Petition in HMOP.No.410/2019 before the Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore, under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, citing a reason that the respondent-wife has caused imminent cruelty. During the pendency of the said HMOP.No.410/2019, the respondent-wife has filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.1/2019 seeking a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards her maintenance and Rs.26,000/towards the payment of EMI to clear her Housing Loan, totalling a sum of Rs.76,000/- p.m. as the appellant is employed in Fong Lee Metal Industries Private Limited, 127, Pioneer Road, Singapore-639 594 as Mechanical Engineering Technician and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.3,50,000/- and above. According to the appellant, since the appellant has been punctually paying Rs.50,000/- every month, even before the said I.A.No.1/2019 was filed by the respondent-wife, the question of moving the said application does not arise at all. More over, in the application seeking maintenance, the respondent-wife has made a false pleading and although the appellant, admittedly, has been working in a company in Singapore, he is not getting the monthly salary as alleged by her. The learned Family Court, overlooking the fact that she is entitled to get only Rs.25,000/-, wrongly accepting her case for monthly maintenance, has ordered a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards maintenance payable within the 7th day of every succeeding English Calendar Month and the learned Family Court has also observed therein that after the entire alleged amount was settled, the amount paid as EMI shall be proportionately reduced from the sum of Rs.50,000/- and also directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. This approach adopted by the learned Family Court is unacceptable and unjustifiable. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, he pleaded.
reason being that firstly, it is not in dispute that the appellant having married the respondent, who was a divorcee with one female child, facing matrimonial dispute has filed HMOP.No.410/2019 before the learned Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. During the pendency of the said case, the respondent-wife has moved I.A.No.1/2019 seeking a sum of Rs.76,000/-, namely, Rs.50,000/- p.m. towards maintenance and Rs.26,000/- p.m. towards the EMI for the Housing Loan besides Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. In her application seeking maintenance, the respondent-wife pleaded that when both the appellant and the respondent were working in the same office, after love affair, they resolved to enter into the matrimonial life. It was, at that time, the respondent-wife was also having a child and she was stopped from coming to the office. Therefore, she claimed that she was unemployed and to maintain her and for the payment of EMI towards the housing loan, the appellant-husband is liable to pay the monthly maintenance.
consistently before this Court, it goes without saying that something wrong with him and he is not willing to disclose his actual monthly salary. Fourthly, when the appellant himself has admitted that the respondent wife alone has been paying the EMI towards the housing loan at the rate of Rs.26,000/-, we do not find any error in the impugned order directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards maintenance including Rs.26,000/- towards EMI for Housing Loan because the learned Family Court has also observed therein that after the entire alleged amount was settled, the amount paid as EMI shall be proportionately reduced from the sum of Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, for the aforementioned reasons, we are unable to find any infirmity or illegality in the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Coimbatore, in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in HMOP.No.410/2019 dated 18.01.2021.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
tsi
To
The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Coimbatore.
Copy to:
The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
C.M.A.No.3206/2021
SS (CO) PR (07/02/2022)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Family Court committed error in fixing monthly maintenance at Rs.50,000/- including EMI despite lack of specific denial and refusal to produce salary slips by the appellant.
Whether the appellant is estopped from challenging the salary figure when he initially admitted the claim and later filled the blank with a lower figure without evidence.
Whether the maintenance order with proportionate reduction of EMI after settlement is unsustainable in law.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manikandan
Vasavi
T.RAJA
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
