Partly allowed

A.Madhukar v. Smt.a.Sushma

Telangana HC25 Sept 2014CRP/4555/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition, the High Court allowed the petitioner to reduce the interim maintenance awarded by the trial court from Rs.8,000/month to Rs.6,000/month, apportioning Rs.4,000 to the wife and Rs.2,000 to their child, considering the petitioner's financial situation.

What did the court decide?

Interim maintenance reduced to Rs.6,000 per month (Rs.4,000 to respondent, Rs.2,000 for child).

A.Madhukar Vs Smt.a.Sushma — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4555 OF 2013

¶3

Dated:25-09-2014
Between:
A. Madhukar
... PETITIONER
AND
Smt. A. Sushma
.. RESPONDENTS

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4555 OF 2013

¶6

ORDER:

¶7

The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage took place on 06-02-2003 and they are blessed with a child. Some differences arose between them some time later and they started living separately. The petitioner filed O.P No. 1416 of 2011 in the Family Court, Hyderabad against the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, ‘the Act’) for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent entered appearance therein and filed I.A No. 1271 of 2012 under Section 24 of the Act, with a prayer to grant maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- for her and the child. She pleaded that the petitioner is doing business in hosiery and is earning substantial income and that she is finding it difficult to maintain herself and the minor child. The I.A was opposed by the petitioner. He stated that the respondent left the matrimonial home on her own accord and that the plea as to the income is not correct. He stated that he is finding it difficult to maintain himself on account of the dullness of the business.

¶8

Through its order dated 05-09-2013, the trial Court directed

¶9

the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent and Rs.3,000/- to their son, every month. The said order is challenged in this revision.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶11

The petitioner did not refuse to maintain the respondent and their son. In fact, he filed the O.P under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. This Court also made an effort to verify whether it would be possible for the parties to live together. The respondent expressed somewhat insecurity.

¶12

The petitioner states that he does not have any definite income and even the business is dull. All the same, it is his duty to maintain his wife and the child. After taking the relevant facts into account, this Court finds that ends of justice would be met if the amount is reduced by Rs.2,000/-, out of which Rs.4,000/- shall be to the respondent and Rs.2,000/- for the child.

¶13

The C.R.P is accordingly allowed in part by reducing the interim maintenance to Rs.6,000/- per month out of which Rs.4,000/- shall be to the respondent and Rs.2,000/- for the child.

¶14

The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶16

25-09-2014 ks

A.Madhukar v. Smt.a.Sushma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Madhukar v. Smt.a.Sushma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Farhathullah Sohail Vs Mrs.Uzma Raheem

K. Vijaya Kumari Vs Twin Cities Investments and Finances Ltd.

Smt.Sayeedunnisa Begum Vs Smt.Sajida Tasneem

S. Sumesh Reddy, Vs S. Devender Reddy

Rajasthan Hindi Vidyalaa Vs Jamia Nizamia

Syed Safdar Hussain Vs Sangam Laxmi Bai