The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal against an interim maintenance award of Rs. 15,000/month. The Court held the Family Court correctly applied parameters from Rajnesh v. Neha, noting the duty to maintain during divorce proceedings, while keeping the door open for parties to lead further evidence in the main petition.
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.(MD).No.259 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
C.M.A.(MD).No.259 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD).No.3217 of 2024
Subbaiah
... Appellant
Vs.
S.Meena ... Respondent
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2023, dated 17.11.2023 in H.M.O.P.No.104 of 2023 on the file of the Family Court, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.
For Appellant : Mr.KA.Raamakrishnan
For Respondent : Mr.P.Arun Jeyatram
C.M.A.(MD).No.259 of 2024
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J. )
The appellant/husband has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the interim maintenance granted by the Family Court, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in H.M.O.P.No.104 of 2023, dated 17.11.2023.
2.Brief facts of the case:
The marriage of the petitioner and respondents was solemnized on 12.05.2017 at Ramalakshmi Thirumanamandapan at Turicorin. After the marriage, one male child namely Gnanesh Pranav was born on 02.10.2018. Some dispute arose between them and the appellant/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.104 of 2023 before the Family Court, Tuticorin, seeking divorce under Section 13(1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act. During the pendency of the H.M.O.P., the respondent/wife filed an I.A.No.3 of 2023 seeking interim maintenance. In the Interlocutory Application, it was stated that the appellant/husband is working as Corporal in Indian Air Force and earned a sum of Rs.76,000/- as monthly income. The said application was contested by the
C.M.A.(MD).No.259 of 2024
appellant/husband by filing counter denying the relationship and the income of the appellant/husband. The learned trial Judge granted monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- by passing impugned order. Hence, challenging the same, the husband has been filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
3. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:
The learned counsel for the appellant/husband submitted that, he is receiving only a sum of Rs.24,432/- as take home salary and he has obtained housing loan and other loan and he is obliged to pay the said loan amount. Hence, he seeks for reduction of the maintenance amount.
4. Submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent:
Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife
would submit that the respondent had undergone multiple surgeries and incurred huge expenditure for her child’s education. Hence, he seeks for confirmation of the award passed by the Family Court, Tuticorin.
learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
C.M.A.(MD).No.259 of 2024
H.M.O.P.No.104 of 2023 before the Family Court, Tuticorin. The appellant/
husband filed the said H.M.O.P. against the respondent/wife seeking divorce and as per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appellant/husband is duty bound to maintain the wife and children pending adjudication. According to the wife, she was not able to maintain herself and her child. Hence, the wife has rightly filed the Interlocutory application seeking maintenance before the Family Court, Tuticorin. The learned counsel for the appellant/husband submitted that the appellant is receiving only a sum of Rs. 24,432/- as take home salary and hence, he seeks for reduction of the maintenance amount. It is true that the take home salary according to the husband is Rs.24,432/-. But, wife and children have to take care of their day-to-
day life. Considering the present day cost of living, status of parties and also considering the following parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha , reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Family Court granted maintenance Rs.15,000/-:
C.M.A.(MD).No.259 of 2024
Therefore, the learned trial Judge considered the above aspects and correctly fixed the monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent/claimant, on the basis of the documentary evidence. Since in all aspects the learned trial Judge correctly decided the entitlement of the respondent to claim maintenance from the petitioner, and reasonably fixed monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/-
C.M.A.(MD).No.259 of 2024
to the respondent. It is open to the parties to let in further evidence during the course of H.M.O.P. proceedings and the learned Judge can independently assess and fix the final amount as maintenance in accordance with law.
7 . This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with direction to the Learned Family Court Judge to dispose of H.M.O.P.No. 104 of 2023 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
No costs.
[V.B.S.,J.] [K.K.R.K.,J.] 25.03.2024
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No
akv/ sbn
To The Judge, Family Court, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.
C.M.A.(MD).No.259 of 2024
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. and K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
akv/sbn
C.M.A.(MD).No.259 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD).No.3217 of 2024
25.03.2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court is sustainable in view of the appellant's stated actual income.
Whether the appellate court should alter the maintenance amount granted to the respondent pending further evidence in the main proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajnesh v. NehaReferred¶36
Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Subbaiah
S.Meena
BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
