A husband's appeal against the dismissal of his divorce petition was dismissed by the High Court because he failed to pay maintenance ordered by the Family Court, citing Supreme Court precedents requiring compliance before prosecuting such appeals.
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.2733 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
C.M.A.No.2733 of 2019
P.Sasikumar
... Appellant
Vs.
Maheswari @ Rajeswari
... Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, against the Order and decree dated 23.04.2019 made in F.C.H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court, Ariyalur.
For Appellant : Mr.Kumaralingam.D.
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjay
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by J. Nisha Banu, J)
This Appeal has been filed by the appellant/husband challenging
the dismissal order passed by the Family Court at Ariyalur, in F.C.H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2017 dated 23.04.2019, in which, the appellant Page 1/4
C.M.A.No.2733 of 2019
has sought for grant of divorce.
(2020) 17 SCC 822 wherein it has been held as follows:
"In the event that there is any failure on the part
of the respondent to comply with the order for deposit of arrears and month to month installments, it will be open to the appellant to apply before the Family Court to get
the defence of the respondent struck off."
vs. Neha) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had passed a detailed judgment giving certain Guidelines / Directions on Maintenance to be followed and in the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been observed as follows:
The Court concluded that if there was non-payment of interim maintenance, the defence of the respondent is liable to be struck off,
Page 2/4
C.M.A.No.2733 of 2019
and the appeal filed by the appellant-wife can be allowed, without hearing the respondent.
till date as directed by the Family Court.
(J.N.B, J.) (R.S.V., J.) 04.12.2024
vsi
To
The Family Court, Ariyalur.
J. NISHA BANU, J.
Page 3/4
C.M.A.No.2733 of 2019
and R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
vsi
C.M.A.No.2733 of 2019
04.12.2024
Page 4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant's appeal for divorce should be dismissed due to non-payment of ordered maintenance?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kaushalya v. Mukesh JainRelied on¶23
Kaushalya v. Mukesh Jain , (2020) 17 SCC 822 · Who else cites this
Rajnesh vs. NehaRelied on¶28
AIR 2021 SC 569 (Rajnesh vs. Neha) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.Sasikumar
Maheswari @ Rajeswari
Nisha Banu
R. Sakthivel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
