Allowed

V.Krishnakumar, v. P.R.Suganya

Madras HC20 Nov 2023CMA(MD)/958/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed against a Family Court's disposal of a divorce petition and maintenance for two daughters. The High Court modified the maintenance award and directed the clubbing of pending proceedings within a stipulated time.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to pay Rs.12,000 per month to two daughters pending disposal; Family Court directed to club and dispose pending petitions within four months.

V.Krishnakumar, Vs P.R.Suganya — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.M.A.(MD).No.958 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

CMA(MD) No.958 of 2023 and CMP(MD) No.13440 of 2023

¶7

V.Krishnakumar

¶8

...appellant/ Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

P.R.Suganya ... Respondent/ respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against the fair and decreetal order dated 29.10.2022 in H.M.O.P.No.146 of 2020 on the file of the Family Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.T.Selvakkumaran For Respondents : Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan

¶13

1/6

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

C.M.A.(MD).No.958 of 2023

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

¶18

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the fair and decreetal order dated 29.10.2022 made in H.M.O.P.No.146 of 2020 by the Family Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.

¶19

2.The appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife.

¶20

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as 'husband' and

¶21

'wife'.

¶22

3.The husband filed H.M.O.P.No.146/2020 before the family

¶23

Court for divorce under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Pending this petition, the wife has filed I.A.No.03/2022 seeking maintenance for her two daughters at the rate of Rs.30,000/- each.

¶24

4.Before the family Court, neither the husband nor the wife has

¶25

let in any oral or documentary evidence. Even the assets and liability statements have not been filed by both sides. Based on the oral

¶26

2/6

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

C.M.A.(MD).No.958 of 2023

¶29

submission made by the respective parties, the family Court has passed the award for grant of maintenance at Rs.15,000/- per month in toto for the two children. Aggrieved by the said order, the husband is before this Court with this appeal.

¶30

5.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/husband and the

¶31

learned counsel for the respondent/wife and perused the materials available on record.

¶32

After perusing the order and after hearing the

¶33

rival submissions, we find that the wife is working as an officer in a bank. She has not preferred any application for interim maintenance for herself pending HMOP. It is also represented that HMOP No.84 of 2020 was filed by the wife seeking for divorce.

¶34

Hence, without going into the rival contentions

¶35

and taking note of the respective income as submitted by the learned counsel for the parties, in the interest of justice,

¶36

3/6

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

C.M.A.(MD).No.958 of 2023

¶39

we modify the award passed by the family Court to the effect that the appellant is directed to pay Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) per month to his two daughters till the disposal of the HMOP. The family Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil is directed to club the divorce petition stated to have been filed by the wife and the HMOP No.146/2020 and dispose of the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

Pending HMOP, the appellant/husband is hereby directed to deposit the amount on or before the 7^th of every English calendar month. On such deposit being made, the wife is permitted to withdraw the same and the statement made by the appellant that he has paid Rs.3,00,000/- is taken on record.

¶41

Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part

¶42

to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently connected

¶43

4/6

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

C.M.A.(MD).No.958 of 2023

¶46

Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶47

(T.K.R.,J.) (P.B.B.,J.) 20.11.2023

¶48

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No RR

¶49

¶50

1.The Family Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.

¶51

2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶52

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

C.M.A.(MD).No.958 of 2023

¶54

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J. AND P.B.BALAJI, J.

¶55

¶56

CMA(MD) No.958 of 2023

¶57

20.11.2023

¶58

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

V.Krishnakumar, v. P.R.Suganya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Krishnakumar, v. P.R.Suganya

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

Mr.C.Rajasekar Vs Mrs.Muthumeena

Veerammal, Vs M.Murugalakshmi

Veerammal, Vs M. Murugalakshmi

Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs Kamala

Managing Director Vs Jhansirani

Oomman Babu Vs Sadasivan Thambi (Died)