Allowed¶25

Dr. Ct Muthiah v. Ct Murugappan and 4 others

Madras HC5 Feb 2025REV.APLO/7/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review Application No.7 of 2024; High Court of Judicature at Madras; N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.; 05.02.2025; Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC; Section 114 of CPC; review of judgment and decree dated 03.11.2023 in C.S.No.46 of 2023; maintenance amount Rs.1,19,917/-; property tax, electricity charges, caretaker salary; defendants 2 to 5 did not dispute expenses; all parties equally liable to pay 1/3 share; defendants directed to bear expenses equally; decree modified; review allowed.

What did the court decide?

Review Application allowed; decree in C.S.No.46 of 2023 modified to direct the defendants to bear the maintenance expenses equally (all parties liable to pay 1/3 share). ¶25

Dr. Ct Muthiah Vs Ct Murugappan and 4 others — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Review Application allowed; decree in C.S.No.46 of 2023 modified to direct the defendants to bear the maintenance expenses equally (all parties liable to pay 1/3 share).

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2023 in C.S.No.46 of 2023 should be reviewed so as to include the maintenance amount of Rs.1,19,917/-, and how the burden of the maintenance expenses should be borne among the parties.

¶15

Court's answer

The expenses are only towards property tax, electricity charges and caretaker's salary, and defendants 2 to 5 have not disputed these expenses (factual premise on which the equal-liability direction rests).

¶19

Ratio / Principle

In order to balance the rights of the parties, all the parties are equally liable to bear the expenses, each being liable to pay 1/3 share.

¶19

Key takeaways

The defendants are directed to bear the expenses equally; the Review Application is allowed and the decree is modified accordingly.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.), 05.02.2025 — Review Application No.7 of 2024, filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC read with Section 114 of CPC by Dr.CT Muthiah against C.T.Murugappan and four others, seeking review of this Court's judgment and decree dated 03.11.2023 in C.S.No.46 of 2023 to include maintenance amount of Rs.1,19,917/-. While disposing the suit, this Court had not ordered maintenance, based on submissions of counsel on either side. During the review hearing, counsel for respondents 2 to 4 admitted readiness to pay 1/3 share of the maintenance amount; the first respondent, who appeared in the last hearing, did not agree for the expenses. The Court noted that the defendants 2 to 5 had not disputed the expenses, which were only towards property tax, electricity charges and salary of the caretaker. To balance the rights of the parties, the Court held all the parties equally liable to pay 1/3 share, directed the defendants to bear the expenses equally, allowed the Review Application and modified the decree accordingly.

¶1

Review Application No.7 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 05.02.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

Review Application No.7 of 2024

¶7

Dr.CT Muthiah ... Applicant

¶8

Vs. 1. C.T.Murugappan 2. PL.S.Subramanian 3. A.Kannammal 4. Visalakshi 5. C.Devaki ... Respondents

¶9

Review Application has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC read with Section 114 of CPC to review judgment and decree of this Court dated 03.11.2023 made in C.S.No.46 of 2023.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mrs.A.L.Ganthimathi, Senior Counsel for Mr.L.Palanimuthu For Respondents : Mrs.C.Uma – R2 to R5 R1 – No appearance

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

1/4

¶13

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

¶14

Review Application No.7 of 2024

¶15

This Review Application has been filed to review the judgment and decree of this Court dated 03.11.2023 made in C.S.No.46 of 2023, to include maintenance amount of Rs.1,19,917/-.

¶16

While disposing the suit, this Court has not ordered maintenance on the basis of the submissions made by the counsel on either side. However, the present review application has been filed to include the maintenance amount.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 failrly

¶18

admitted before this Court that they are ready to pay 1/3 share of the maintenance amount. The first respondent appeared in the last hearing and he did nto agree for the expenses.

¶19

In order to balance the rights of the parties, all the parties are equally liable to pay 1/3 share. The defendants 2 to 5 have not disputed the expenses and the expense is only towards property tax, electricity charges and towards salary for the care taker. All the parties are equally liable to

¶20

2/4

¶21

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

¶22

Review Application No.7 of 2024

¶23

bare the expenses.

¶24