Dismissed¶47

M.Raju v. S.Radhika

Maintenance – non-payment by husband

Madras HC20 Jan 2025CMA/1816/2022

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (J. Nisha Banu and R. Sakthivel JJ.), 20.01.2025: husband's appeals against the restitution of conjugal rights order in O.P.No.3848 of 2017 (C.M.A.No.1816 of 2022) and against dismissal of his divorce petition in HMOP.No.1513 of 2013 (C.M.A.No.831 of 2020) were dismissed because he had not paid maintenance to his wife and son as ordered in M.C.No.80/2018; citing Kaushalya v. Mukesh Jain (2020) 17 SCC 822 and Rajnesh v. Neha (AIR 2021 SC 569), the Court held a defaulting maintenance payer cannot prosecute his appeals.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; both Civil Miscellaneous Appeals dismissed with no costs and connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶47

M.Raju Vs S.Radhika — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

C.M.A.Nos.1816 of 2022 and CMA.831 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.01.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

¶6

C.M.A.No.1816 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.13039 of 2022 and C.M.A.No.831 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.8342 of 2020

¶7

M.Raju S/o Mani ..Appellant in both the Appeals Vs.

¶8

S.Radhika D/o Surendhar Raj ...Respondent in both the Appeals.

¶9

Prayer in CMA.No.1816 of 2022: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is

¶10

filed under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 against the common

¶11

order dated 27.04.2022 passed in O.P.No.3848 of 2017 on the file of III Additional Family Court, Chennai.

¶12

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

¶13

Page 1/5

¶14

C.M.A.Nos.1816 of 2022

¶15

and CMA.831 of 2020

¶16

Prayer in CMA.No.831 of 2020: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is

¶17

filed under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2017 made in HMOP.No.1513 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, in-charge of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai.

¶18

For Appellant : Mr.Harinath

¶19

For Respondent : Mr.D.Nellaiappan

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

(The judgment of the Court was delivered by J.Nisha Banu,J.) CMA.No.1816 of of 2022 has been filed by the appellant/husband

¶22

against the order dated 27.04.2022 passed in O.P.No.3848 of 2017 by the learned III Additional Family Court, Chennai, allowing the petition filed by the respondent /wife for restitution of conjugal rights. CMA.No.831 of 2020 has been filed by the appellant/husband against the order dated 18.08.2017 made in HMOP.No.1513 of 2013, in which, the petition filed by the appellant/husband seeking divorce was dismissed.

¶23

Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel for the

¶24

respondent/wife stated that the appellant/husband has not paid

¶25

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

¶26

Page 2/5

¶27

C.M.A.Nos.1816 of 2022

¶28

and CMA.831 of 2020

¶29

maintenance amount to the respondent/wife and their son, as ordered in M.C.No.80/2018 by the Family Court from the year 2018.

¶30

It is relevant to point out at this juncture, the decision of the

¶31

Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Kaushalya v. Mukesh Jain ,

¶32

(2020) 17 SCC 822 wherein it has been held as follows:

¶33

"In the event that there is any failure on the part

¶34

of the respondent to comply with the order for deposit of arrears and month to month installments, it will be open

¶35

to the appellant to apply before the Family Court to get the defence of the respondent struck off."

¶36

Further, in the decision reported in AIR 2021 SC 569 (Rajnesh

¶37

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

¶38

as follows:

¶39

The Court concluded that if there was non-payment of interim maintenance, the defence of the respondent is liable to be struck off, Page 3/5

¶40

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

¶41

C.M.A.Nos.1816 of 2022

¶42

and CMA.831 of 2020

¶43

and the appeal filed by the appellant-wife can be allowed, without hearing the respondent.

¶44

In the present case, the appellant has not paid the maintenance

¶45

amount to the respondent/wife and their son, till date as directed by the Family Court.

¶46

In view of the above, we are not inclined to allow the

¶47

appellant/husband to prosecute the appeals without paying the maintenance. This Court has no other option except to dismiss the Appeals as the appellant cannot maintain the appeals without paying the maintenance. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶48

(J.N.B, J.) (R.S.V., J.) 20.01.2025

¶49

vsi

¶50

¶51