Dismissed¶33

Yamini Prasad v. Brindha Devi

Madras HC1 Apr 2025CMA/883/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: interim maintenance; pendent lite maintenance; Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 19 Family Courts Act, 1984; Section 28 Hindu Marriage Act, 1956; maintainability of appeal against interim maintenance order; Article 227 revision; Family Court Chennai; V Additional Judge; divorce O.P. ground of cruelty; C.M.A. dismissed; no order as to costs. Relevant to queries on whether an appeal lies against interim/pendente lite maintenance orders passed in matrimonial original petitions, and the prescribed Article 227 revisionary remedy before the High Court.

What did the court decide?

None — the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit and not maintainable; there shall be no order as to costs; the connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P. No.7249 of 2025) is closed. ¶33

Yamini Prasad Vs Brindha Devi — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the Family Court's interim maintenance order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is maintainable. +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

An appeal will not lie either under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 or under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against an order granting interim or pendent lite maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act; the proper remedy lies only in filing a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court, irrespective of whether the order is passed by a regular Civil Court or a Family Court.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order fixing interim maintenance at Rs.10,000/- for the wife and Rs.5,000/- each for the two children does not suffer from any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (DIVISION BENCH: R. SURESH KUMAR AND DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, JJ.) — C.M.A. No. 883 of 2025 and C.M.P. No. 7249 of 2025, decided 01.04.2025 (judgment delivered by Dr. A.D. Maria Clete, J). Husband's Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order and decree dated 24.03.2021 of the V Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai in I.A. No. 2 of 2019 in O.P. No. 3067 of 2018 — whereby he was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the wife and Rs.5,000/- each to the two minor children from 22.07.2019, besides litigation expenses, pursuant to the wife's application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — DISMISSED as devoid of merit and not maintainable. Relying on the Division Bench ruling of this Court in C.M.P.No.18729 of 2023 in C.M.A. No. 1914 of 2021 etc. (batch), dated 21.03.2024, the Court held that no appeal lies either under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 or under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against an order granting interim or pendent lite maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act; the proper remedy is a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court, irrespective of whether the order was passed by a regular Civil Court or a Family Court. The impugned order was found free of legal infirmity or procedural irregularity. No order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

C.M.A.No.883 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.04.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶6

C.M.A.No.883 of 2025 and C.M.P. No.7249 of 2025

¶7

Yamini Prasad S/o.K.Loganathan, residing at No.28, New Amarajapuram, Tondiarpet, Chennai – 600 081.

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Brindha Devi, W/o.Yamini Prasad, residing at No.15-B, Chinna Samay Nagar, Kanagambal Nagar, Periyamathur, Manali, Chennai – 600 068.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

1/7

¶13

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

¶14

C.M.A.No.883 of 2025

¶15

PRAYER

¶16

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of Family Court Act to set aside the order and decree dated 24.03.2021 made in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in O.P.No.3067 of 2018 by the V Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai.

¶17

For Appellant : Mr. R. Rangarajan.

¶18

J U D G M E N T (Delivered by Dr. A.D. Maria Clete, J)

¶19

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 by the appellant/husband challenging the order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the V Additional Family Court, Chennai in I.A. No. 2 of 2019 in O.P. No. 3067 of 2018, whereby the Family Court directed the appellant to pay a total sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent/wife and Rs.5,000/- each to their two minor children—with effect from the date of the application, i.e., 22.07.2019. The appellant was also directed to pay litigation expenses.

¶20

The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 23.05.2008. Two children were born to the couple during the subsistence of the

¶21

2/7

¶22

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

¶23

C.M.A.No.883 of 2025

¶24

marriage and are in the custody of the respondent. The matrimonial relationship appears to have soured, leading to the institution of O.P. No. 3067 of 2018 by the appellant seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.

¶25

Pending disposal of the original petition, the respondent filed I.A. No. 2 of 2019 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month for herself and Rs.10,000/- each for the two minor children, along with litigation expenses. The Family Court, upon considering the pleadings and submissions of both parties, partly allowed the petition and fixed the interim maintenance at Rs.10,000/- for the wife and Rs.5,000/- each for the two children.

¶26

The trial court, after considering the uncontroverted averments of the respondent and the lack of rebuttal by the appellant, held that the appellant was under a legal obligation to maintain his wife and two minor children. The Court further noted that the respondent was the sole caregiver and, factoring in the cost of living in Chennai, awarded interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent and Rs.5,000/- each to the children. The order does not suffer from any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity. It is also observed that, as held by the

¶27

3/7

¶28

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

¶29

C.M.A.No.883 of 2025

¶30

Division Bench of this Court in C.M.P.No.18729 of 2023 in C.M.A. No. 1914 of

¶31

2021 etc., (batch), dated 21.03.2024, an appeal will not lie either under Section 28

¶32

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, or under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, against an order granting interim or pendent lite maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The proper remedy lies only in filing a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court, irrespective of whether the order is passed by a regular Civil Court or a Family Court. In view of the foregoing, this Court finds that the appeal is devoid of merit and is also not maintainable.

¶33

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶34

(R.S.K., J) (A.D.M.C., J) 01.04.2025

¶35

ay Index: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes / No

¶36

4/7

¶37

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

¶38

C.M.A.No.883 of 2025

¶39

¶40