Dismissed¶48

M.Manojkumar v. Dhanalakshmi

Madras HC7 Mar 2025CRP/471/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim maintenance under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act upheld; husband's civil revision petition under Article 227 dismissed by Madras High Court; non-production/deliberate withholding of bank statement; claimed GST-related business dip versus admitted profitable pulses trading (M/s.Madhankumar Trading Company); needs of minor school-going children; VI Additional Family Court, Chennai; IA.No.3 of 2024 in HMOP.No.583 of 2023; connected C.M.P.No. 2787 of 2025 closed.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the VI Additional Family Court stands, the Civil Revision Petition being dismissed with no costs and the connected C.M.P.No. 2787 of 2025 closed. ¶48

M.Manojkumar Vs Dhanalakshmi — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should interfere with (reduce or set aside) the interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the VI Additional Family Court, Chennai, in favour of the respondent-wife and the two minor children.

¶21

Court's answer

This Court saw no reason to interfere with the order of the learned VI Additional Family Judge, Chennai, which took into consideration the needs of the minor school-going children as well as the petitioner; the Civil Revision Petition was accordingly dismissed.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

The basis for non-interference was that the petitioner's pulses business was admittedly doing considerably well, and that the petitioner had deliberately kept his bank statement away from the Court's scrutiny despite pleading a post-GST dip and losses.

¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (P.T. ASHA, J.), 07.03.2025: Dismissed C.R.P.(PD).No. 471 of 2025, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by a husband challenging the interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the VI Additional Family Court, Chennai (order dated 21.12.2024 in IA.No.3 of 2024 in HMOP.No.583 of 2023) in favour of his wife and two minor children under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner had declared earnings of only Rs.4,81,630/- per annum, offered Rs.5,000/- per month, and pleaded a post-GST dip in business and losses, but did not produce his bank statements; the wife alleged an annual income exceeding Rs.50,00,00,000/- and expenditure of over Rs.20,00,000/- on the children raised through loans. Observing that the pulses business was admittedly 'doing considerably well' and that the petitioner had deliberately kept his bank statement from the Court's scrutiny, the Court held there was no reason to interfere with the trial court's order, dismissed the revision petition, closed the connected C.M.P.No. 2787 of 2025, and made no order as to costs.

¶1

C.R.P.(PD).No. 471 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 07.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

C.R.P.(PD).No. 471 of 2025 &

¶7

C.M.P.No. 2787 of 2025

M.Manojkumar

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.Dhanalakshmi

2.M.Haasini (Minor)

3.M.Melvin Sajiv (Minor) ...Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order passed in IA.No.3 of 2024 in HMOP.No.583 of 2023 dated 21.12.2024 passed by the learned VI

¶15

Additional Family Court, Chennai.

¶16

1/7

¶17

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

¶18

C.R.P.(PD).No. 471 of 2025

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr. D.Umashankar

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Challenging the interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- awarded to

¶22

his wife and children the petitioner is before this Court.

¶23

The petitioner had filed HMOP.No.583 of 2023, seeking dissolution of marriage between himself and the 1^st respondent on the file of the VI Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai. The 1^st respondent / wife had filed the above IA stating that she is now taking care of her two minor children and that she had to leave matrimonial

¶24

home on account of the cruelty meted on her by the petitioner.

¶25

The respondent / wife would submit that the petitioner /

¶26

husband is a man of means earning an annual income of over Rs.50,00,00,000/-. He is doing business in pulses and earning considerable sums of money. For the last three years the respondent /

¶27

2/7

¶28

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

¶29

C.R.P.(PD).No. 471 of 2025

¶30

wife has spent more than Rs.20,00,000/- towards the children's education, food, medical expenses by taking loan from her friends and family. The respondent would submit that she is unemployed. Therefore, the respondent has come forward with the petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶31

The petitioner would counter the petition by contending that after the GST his business had undergone a dip. He would also submit that the respondent is periodically changing the School of the children and they are not attending the School regularly. He would contend that the 1^st respondent had voluntarily left the matrimonial home. Further, he had sustained a loss and therefore it would not be possible for him to pay the maintenance. However, he is ready to pay school fees and purchase groceries for the children.

¶32

The learned VI Additional Family Judge, Chennai, on perusing affidavit of assets and liabilities as also the bank pass book of the petitioner and respondent observed that the petitioner is a proprietor of

¶33

3/7

¶34

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

¶35

C.R.P.(PD).No. 471 of 2025

¶36

a trading company, M/s.Madhankumar Trading Company, which is engaged in the business of pulses and was earning Rs.4,81,630/- per annum. He had also stated that he is willing to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-

¶37

per month for the children. The petitioner had not produced the bank statement to show his earning.

¶38

The learned VI Additional Family Judge, Chennai, after taking into account the over all requirements directed a payment of Rs.30,000/- to the respondents.

¶39

Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶41

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner simply

¶42

reiterated the statement made before the Trial Court that he would, in all, pay a sum of Rs.5000/-. Admittedly the petitioner is doing a business in pulses and it is an admitted fact that the said business is

¶43

4/7

¶44

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

¶45

C.R.P.(PD).No. 471 of 2025

¶46

doing considerably well. The petitioner has deliberately kept away his bank statement from the scrutiny of the Court.

¶47

In these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the

¶48

order passed by the learned VI Additional Family Judge, Chennai, who has taken into consideration the needs of the minor school going children as well as the petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶49

07.03.2025

¶50

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No kan

¶51

5/7

¶52

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

¶53

C.R.P.(PD).No. 471 of 2025

¶54

¶55