Disposed

J.Sundharesan Alias Srikanth v. M.Krithika

Madras HC8 Nov 2024CRP/4269/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A husband sought expedited trial of a restitution of conjugal rights petition. The court directed the Family Court to dispose pending jewel-return and maintenance applications, jointly try both matrimonial proceedings within three months, permit video-conference appearances, and bar prosecution unless maintenance arrears are cleared.

What did the court decide?

Directions to Family Court: dispose I.A.Nos.5 & 6 of 2022 by 22.11.2024, jointly trial and dispose both HMOPs within three months after maintenance disposal, allow video conferencing, condition prosec

J.Sundharesan Alias Srikanth Vs M.Krithika — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CRP No.4269 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08.11.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN

¶6

CRP No.4269 of 2024

¶7

J. Sundharesan alias Srikanth ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

M. Krithika .... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the learned VI Additional Family Judge, Chennai to conduct trial and expeditiously dispose H.M.O.P No.1951 of 2021 within an outer limit of three months.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mahesh Kumar

¶12

For Respondent : Ms.K.Sumathi

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Civil Revision Petition seeks for expeditious disposal of H.M.O.P.No.1951 of 2021 on the file of VI Additional Family Court, Chennai.

¶15

1/8

¶16

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

¶17

CRP No.4269 of 2011

¶18

HMOP No.1951 of 2021 is the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights launched by the civil revision petitioner against the respondent. Earlier to this petition, the respondent had moved the Court for divorce in HMOP No.1954 of 2020 and that proceedings too is pending on the file of VI Additional Family Court, Chennai.

¶19

When the matter came up for hearing on 05.11.2024, Ms.K.Sumathi, who entered appearance for the respondent/wife, sought time to file counter in order to bring to the notice of this Court certain facts which have taken place pending the aforesaid proceedings. She has filed a counter today.

¶20

It states that three interim applications are pending viz.,(i) I.A.No.5 of 2022 – a petition under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for the return of the jewels, individually owned by wife as well as those purchased after the matrimony entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. (ii) I.A.No.6 of 2022 – an application for interim maintenance for child born from the wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent and

¶21

2/8

¶22

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

¶23

CRP No.4269 of 2011

¶24

(iii) an amendment application seeking enhancement of maintenance.

¶25

After the first two applications had been filed in 2022, the husband

¶26

has moved to Germany and is admittedly working there in a private Institution. Therefore, the wife has filed an application, seeking for enhancement of interim maintenance as well as for litigation expenses.

¶27

Mr.S.Mahesh pleads that his client is not in a position to produce the

¶28

pay slip on account of the fact that the employer has to comply with the requirements of the German law relating to the data protection.

¶29

Ms.K.Sumathi immediately points out that there is already an order of

¶30

Family Court directing the respondent/husband to produce the pay slip. This position is not disputed by Mr.S.Mahesh Kumar.

¶31

He pleads without a certified copy of the order directing him to

¶32

produce the pay slip, his client is not in a position to convince his German employer to issue the same.

¶33

3/8

¶34

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

¶35

CRP No.4269 of 2011

¶36

Indian Courts need not wait for the convenience of a German

¶37

employer to issue the payslip. Since there is an order of the Family Court directing him to produce the pay slip and in case of non-compliance of the same,the Family Court can proceed further in these interlocutory applications viz., 5 of 2022 and 6 of 2022, relating to maintenance as well as for amendment of maintenance amount and dispose of the same. If, despite this order, the petitioner/husband does not produce the pay slip, then, the Court is always entitled to draw adverse inference against the husband. Both sides agreed that the matter is listed for arguments on 15.11.2024.

¶38

The learned Judge need not postpone the matter any further. With the available records, if the husband does not produce the pay slips, the Court shall enter upon the judgment by 22.11.2024.

¶39

Insofar as the application I.A.No.5 of 2022, filed under Section 27 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is concerned, the tenor of the section reads that it should be disposed of along with the main HMOP. This is because, when the Court passes a decree either for restitution or for divorce, being a proceeding in

¶40

4/8

¶41

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

¶42

CRP No.4269 of 2011

¶43

the nature of accounts, which puts an end to the status of the parties, the Court should pass an order with respect to the materials that have been jointly owned by husband and wife.

¶44

Ms.K.Sumathi points out that apart from the joint ownership of jewels, the locker, in which, the jewels have been kept, has both individually owned jewels as well as jointly owned jewels. Therefore, the Court will take a call on the jewels, individually owned and possessed by the wife in I.A.No.5 of 2022. Insofar as the jewels commonly owned/purchased by the parties, final orders will be passed along with the disposal of HMOP Nos.1954 of 2020 and 1951 of 2021.

¶45

Being a proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights and other for divorce, both should be tried jointly and disposed of. There shall be a direction to the learned VI Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai to take up HMOP Nos.1951 of 2021 and 1954 of 2020 for trial and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of disposal of the applications filed for maintenance. The learned Judge is requested to make it clear, at the time of

¶46

5/8

¶47

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

¶48

CRP No.4269 of 2011

¶49

disposal of the interim maintenance application as well as the application for enhancement, that unless and until the husband clears the arrears and continues to pay maintenance, so fixed by the Family Court, month on month, he will not be entitled to prosecute HMOP No.1951 of 2021 or defend HMOP No.1954 of 2020.

¶50

The Supreme Court of India in Sarvesh Mathur vs Registrar

¶51

General, 2023 SCC Online SC 1293 has made it clear that parties can appear through video conferencing as of right as it is a part of access to justice. It has specifically directed no application seeking permission need to be filed to appear through video conferencing. The Family Court shall permit the petitioner and the respondent to appear through Video Conferencing.

¶52

With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.

¶53

No costs.

¶54

08.11.2024

¶55

Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order sr

¶56

6/8

¶57

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

¶58

CRP No.4269 of 2011

¶59

¶60

VI Additional Family Court, Chennai

¶61

7/8

¶62

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

¶63

CRP No.4269 of 2011

¶64

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.,

s r

CRP No.4269 of 2024

08.11.2024

8/8

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

J.Sundharesan Alias Srikanth v. M.Krithika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Sundharesan Alias Srikanth v. M.Krithika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sekar Vs Pushpavathi

T. Divya Vs K. Someswaran

G.Jayashree Vs S.Sakthivel

Shreetha Vs Balasaravanan

P.Parameshwari Vs Subbathal (Died) 1.POOVATHAL

R.Kumar Gandhi, Vs a.Annadurai and 3 others