Disposed

Ganesan, v. Tmt.Kaliyammal

Madras HC29 Aug 2024CMA(MD)/378/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband appealed against the Family Court, Dindigul's award of Rs.5,000 per month interim maintenance to his wife pending a divorce HMOP. Since the main HMOP was since disposed of by exparte decree in the husband's favour, nothing survived; appeal disposed of with liberty to wife to pursue remedies.

What did the court decide?

None granted; wife given liberty to pursue her remedy if amounts unpaid or adverse order passed in the HMOP.

Ganesan, Vs Tmt.Kaliyammal — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A.(MD)No.378 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :29.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

C.M.A.(MD)No.378 of 2019 and CMP(MD)No.4622of 2019

Ganesan

...Appellant

Vs.

Kaliyammal ... Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 27.03.2019 in I.A.No.587 of 2018 in HMOP.No.139 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court, Dindigul.

¶12

For Appellant : Ms.A.Arul Jenifer For Respondent : Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu

¶13

Page 1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

C.M.A.(MD)No.378 of 2019

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.VELMURUGAN, J.)

¶17

This appeal is arising out of the interim order passed by the Family

¶18

Court, Dindigul, in I.A.No.587 of 2018 in HMOP.No.139 of 2017.

¶19

2.It is represented that pending HMOP, the respondent/wife filed the above interlocutory application before the Family Court for interim alimony till the disposal of the HMOP.No.139 of 2017, which is filed for divorce by the appellant/husband.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Family Court awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to be paid as interim maintenance to the respondent/wife. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court.

¶21

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent/wife would submit that pending this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the petitioner/husband got exparte decree in

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

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

¶24

C.M.A.(MD)No.378 of 2019

¶25

HMOP.No.139 of 2017 before the Family Court and the HMOP is disposed of in favour of the petitioner/husband.

¶26

Since the main HMOP itself is disposed of, nothing survives in

¶27

this appeal for further adjudication. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, in case, if the appellant has not paid any amount and if there is any adverse order passed in the HMOP, the respondent/wife is at liberty to work out her remedy in the manner known to law.

¶28

(P.V., J.) (K.K.R.K., J.) 29.08.2024

¶29

NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No

¶30

PJL

¶31

¶32

1.The Judge, Family Court, Dindigul.

¶33

2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Records Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶34

Page 3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

C.M.A.(MD)No.378 of 2019

¶36

P.VELMURUGAN, J. and K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶37

PJL

¶38

C.M.A.(MD)No.378 of 2019

¶39

29.08.2024

¶40

Page 4 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Ganesan, v. Tmt.Kaliyammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesan, v. Tmt.Kaliyammal

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

U.Thaiyal Nathan Vs Amutha @ Kalarani

Priya, W/O.Late.Rajkumar, Vs the Managing Director

Tamilselvi, Vs Karumbachalam

The Branch Manager Vs M.Mariammal

M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co.Ltd, Vs Mani Mekala

Ambika Vs S.Balamurugan