liable to be interfered with to prevent serious miscarriage of justice. The trial Court found that the cause of action to lodge the complaint for domestic violence commenced on 28.2.2011 and limitation of one year for filing complaint fell on 28.2.2012. Admittedly, the complaint was filed by the respondent on 8.8.2012, which was beyond the period of limitation with a delay of 6 months and having consider it, the trial court, without any reason, entertained the Domestic Violence Case and granted maintenance as claimed in the complaint by directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent/wife. When the complaint was beyond the period of limitation with inexplicable delay, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to proceed further with the complaint. hence the grant of maintenance by the trial Court, as claimed in the complaint, after dismissal of complaint, is irregular, illegal, illogic and resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. The Courts below failed to see that mere statement before Court will not be construed as evidence and when there was no proof or evidence as to the actual income or property, without ascertaining the same, the trial Court is not justified in determining the maintenance amount in proportion to the materials not available on record. Hence, the said finding of the trial Court is against law and without satisfying the requirement of law under the Evidence Act. The finding of the Courts below that the averments of petitioner in the pleadings prove that he has income and property to live with the respondent, cannot be construed that he is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
