Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 1063
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR
N. Ramesh
Versus
R. Gnanasaraswathi
CRP(PD) No.1401 of 2006 & MP.No: 1 of 2006 & MP.No:1 of 2007
Decided On : 26-03-2007
For the Petitioner:G. Jawaharlal, Advocate. For the Respondent:S. Jaganathan, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to interim maintenance pendente lite based on the financial circumstances of the parties and the duty of the husband to disclose his income in a petition for interim alimony.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 13(1)(ia) - 1955 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which deals with divorce on the ground of cruelty. The court also considered the principles of maintenance under family law and the grant of interim alimony. The interpretation of the legal provisions influenced the court's decision on the grant of maintenance.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a husband filing for divorce on the ground of cruelty and the wife seeking interim maintenance for herself and their children. The husband contested the maintenance claim, alleging that the wife had sufficient means to support herself and the children.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wife was entitled to interim maintenance based on her financial circumstances and the husband's refusal to disclose his income. The court also noted that the grant of maintenance pendente lite is not dependent on the merits of the main petition.
Issues: The issues involved the husband's claim of the wife's financial independence, the husband's income disclosure, and the grant of interim maintenance pendente lite.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the wife's financial needs, the husband's refusal to disclose his income, and the principles of maintenance under family law.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and the husband was directed to pay the balance maintenance awarded and continue to pay the monthly interim maintenance until further orders by the trial court.
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 26. 2006 made in I.A.No: 754 of 2005 in F.C.O.P.No: 1523 of 2004 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, directing the revision petitioner/husband to pay a monthly interim maintenance of Rs.17,000 /= to the respondent/wife and two children.
2. The FCOP.No.1523 of 2004 has been filed by the revision petitioner/husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of cruelty committed by the respondent/wife. Pending the said petition, the respondent/wife filed I.A.No.754 of 2005 for interim alimony of Rs.25,000/= per month towards her childrens education and family expenses and Rs.10,000/= towards litigation expenses. The wife also filed O.P.No.975 of 2005 for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner/husband resisted the said petition contending that the respondent wife is a spendthrift. He is not owning any property in VI Cross St., Sastri Nagar, Kandanchavadi, Venkatarahinam Nagar and Teachers Colony. He is owning only 15 acres of agricultural lands in Sriperumbuthur and getting only 15,000/= per annum. He is not having bank balance of Rs.1 crore as alleged by the wife. He is not having any lands worth Rs.5 crores. After marriage the wifes father gave her 5 acres of land. His father also gave her 5.45 acres of lands near Sriperumbuthur. There are coconut trees. There is a sugarcane cultivation. She has sufficient means. She has sufficient means to maintain herself and the children. Therefore she is not entitled to get any maintenance.
3. Before the leaned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, the wife examined herself as P.W.1 apart from filing Exs.P.1 to P.9 and the husband examined himself as R.W.1 besides filing Exs.R.1 to R.30. The Learned Judge, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, granted a sum of Rs.11,500 to the wife, Rs.3000/= to the first son and Rs.2,500/= to the second son and Rs.8,000/= as one time payment towards litigation expenses. Aggrieved of the same, the present revision has been filed by the husband.
.4. A perusal of the impugned order would show that till May 2004, both the revision petitioner and the respondent with their children were living together. The learned Principal Judge has found that since Exs.R.10, R.12 and R.13 pertains to the period when they were living together, it cannot be taken that the respondent had independent income. As regards R.14 and 15 showing the pledging of jewels and obtained money and gave the same to his friend Ravichandran has been denied and the said transactions are much anterior to their discordant relationship. R.19 bank pass book also does not show any transaction after their separation. Exs.R.20 to R.25 which are copies of sale deeds in the name of the wife, the revision petitioner did not file any document or proof to show that she derived any income thereof. Though it is alleged by the petitioner that the wife herself admitted the receipt of several lakhs of rupees from him and also from the lands in the letter dated 11. 2003 according to the respondent, the petitioner did several business in her name benami and in such course, he obtained her signatures in many blank papers and now utilised one of such paper to concoct a story to suit his convenience. Further, the letter is dated 11. 2003 during which time their relationship was not of strained nature. It is not disputed by the wife that she is getting a sum of Rs.3,500/= as interest per month from the deposit of Rs.2 lakhs.
5. It is the further case of the respondent that the petitioners father Advocate Narayanasamy died after leaving vast extent of valuable properties at several places to his three sons, one of them is the petitioner. The petitioner has sold several lands for several crores of rupees along with his brothers and is having liquid cash. Though the petitioner admits certain properties standing in his name also stated in evidence that most of the prop
