This is a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against an order awarding interim maintenance to a minor daughter. The High Court upheld the maintenance amount as reasonable but directed payment of arrears in installments due to the father's financial situation.
Order upheld for maintenance; arrears of Rs.1,85,000 to be paid in ten equal installments by 5th of each month.
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.
C.M.A.No.1487 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.12.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
C.M.A.No.1487 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.11816 of 2018
K.E.Gnanavelu
...Appellant
Versus
1.R.Indumathi
2.G.Thejashri (Minor) Rep. by guardian/mother ...Respondents
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 20.03.2018 made in I.A.No.422 of 2017 in O.P.No.146 of 2016 on the file of the 1st Additional Family Court at Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Mohan For Respondent - 1 : Mr.P.Kanthan For Respondent – 2 : Minor represented by R1
JUDGMENT
1/6
C.M.A.No.1487 of 2018
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)
Challenging the order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the learned I Additional Principal Judge, I Additional Family Court, Chennai in I.A.No.422 of 2017 in O.P.No.146 of 2016, the appellant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
The appellant and first respondent are husband and wife. They got married on 31.10.2011 as per the Hindu rites and customs. The second respondent is the only daughter born through their wedlock. Due to misunderstanding arose between the parties, they were separated and the appellant/husband filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.146 of 2016 before Family Court, Chennai seeking divorce. Pending the same, the first respondent/wife filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.422 of 2017 in H.M.O.P.No.146 of 2016 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, seeking interim monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to her and Rs.20,000/- to her minor daughter/second respondent and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses. The learned I Additional Principal Judge, Chennai vide order dated 20.03.2018, partly allowed the said application and directed the appellant/husband to pay a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/6
C.M.A.No.1487 of 2018
sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the minor daughter/second respondent as interim maintenance from the date of application viz., 06.10.2016 and further, directed him to pay the litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to the first respondent/wife. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/husband has come up with the present Appeal.
3.The learned counsel for the appellant / husband submitted that the actual monthly take home salary of the appellant / husband is less than Rs.10,000/-, whereas the first respondent / wife is working in an MNC company and earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month and that, she has already given up her claim of interim maintenance at the time of hearing the interim maintenance application and hence, she is able to maintain herself and the second respondent / minor daughter. However, the Family Court directed the appellant/ husband to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards interim maintenance to his minor daughter / second respondent. Therefore, the learned counsel sought to allow this appeal by setting aside the order of the Family Court, awarding interim maintenance to the second respondent.
3/6
C.M.A.No.1487 of 2018
the Family Court has awarded only a meagre sum of Rs.5,000/- towards monthly interim maintenance to the second respondent / minor daughter alone, and therefore, the same need not be interfered with by this court.
4/6
C.M.A.No.1487 of 2018
maintain her. Further, the Family Court, after taking note of all the factual aspects and the evidence produced before it, awarded only a sum of Rs.5,000/-
per month towards interim maintenance to the second respondent / minor daughter, which in the opinion of this court, seems to be reasonable and the same does not call for any interference. However, considering the fact that the appellant's monthly take home salary is less than Rs.10,000/- and he has to pay arrears of interim maintenance at Rs.1,85,000/- to his minor daughter/second respondent, this court directs the appellant/husband to pay the arrears of interim maintenance in ten equal installments. The appellant / husband shall pay the first instalment on or before 05.01.2023 and thereafter, continue to pay the remaining 9 equated installments along with monthly maintenance on or before 5th day of every English calender month, without fail.
( R.M.D., J. ) ( J.S.N.P., J. ) 09.12.2022
mrr
Index : Yes/No Speaking Judgment (or) Non-Speaking Judgment
R.MAHADEVAN, J. and
5/6
C.M.A.No.1487 of 2018
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
mrr
To
C.M.A.No.1487 of 2018
09.12.2022
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant needs to pay interim maintenance to the minor daughter considering his financial inability.
Whether the Family Court order awarding Rs.5,000/- per month to the minor daughter requires interference.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K.E.Gnanavelu
R.Indumathi
G.Thejashri
R.MAHADEVAN
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
