Husband sought reduction of interim maintenance for his minor son from Rs.7,500 to Rs.3,500 per month, citing the wife's income and his bank loan obligations. The High Court held the amount was not disproportionate, declined interference, and dismissed the civil revision 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.R.P.(PD)No.4082 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(PD)No.4082 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.22459 of 2024
Thulasimani
.. Petitioner
Vs
A.Valarmathi
.. Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to revise the interim maintenance amount from Rs.7,500/- per month to Rs.3,500/- per month as ordered in I.A.No.93 of 2017 in H.M.O.P.No.121 of 2015 by the learned Subordinate Judge at Bhavani, Erode District, on 06.07.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.Koviramalingam
O R D E R
The civil revision petitioner is the father of a minor son. He married
the sole respondent on 25.05.2012. From the wedlock, the child was born https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6
C.R.P.(PD)No.4082 of 2024
on 20.02.2013. The child is said to be studying in VII standard. On account of the fact that the petitioner and respondent developed differences, they separated. The civil revision petitioner has initiated a proceeding in H.M.O.P.No.121 of 2015 seeking for divorce. Pending the proceeding, the respondent wife took out an application for interim maintenance in I.A.No.93 of 2017. She pleaded that she is unable to maintain the child all by herself and wanted the husband to bear the financial burden at the least. A counter was received in the said application and it was disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge at Bhavani on 06.07.2024. The learned Judge, by the impugned order, had fixed a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month as maintenance for the minor child. Aggrieved by the same, the husband is on revision.
C.R.P.(PD)No.4082 of 2024
standard. The husband pleads that the wife is earning about Rs.60,000/per month working as a professor in Kongu Engineering College, Erode. Therefore, she has to share the responsibility of bringing up the child. In addition, the husband pleads that he is paying a sum of Rs.14,083/- as monthly installment, for the loan with HDFC Bank at Marappalayam branch, Erode District.
3/6
C.R.P.(PD)No.4082 of 2024
said line is not in dispute. The plea of the petitioner that he has to repay the bank loan and therefore, the liability towards his son should be reduced certainly does not appeal to me. A bank does not get a priority of repayment more than the maintenance of a child. The amount of Rs.7,500/- per month for a child who is studying VII standard in Erode cannot be said to be disproportionate, this especially when the mother is having the custody of the child. Apart from this paltry amount, obviously, the mother is going to be spending her time and effort in bringing up the child. The order passed by the learned Judge especially in paragraph 8 of the impugned order is unassailable and does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.
without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.10.2024
Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No kj
4/6
C.R.P.(PD)No.4082 of 2024
To
The Subordinate Judge at Bhavani, Erode District.
5/6
C.R.P.(PD)No.4082 of 2024
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
kj
C.R.P.(PD)No.4082 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.22459 of 2024
14.10.2024
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the interim maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month fixed for the minor child should be reduced to Rs.3,500/- per month under Article 227 revisional jurisdiction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Thulasimani
A.Valarmathi
V. Lakshminarayanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
