Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 2864
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. RAJASURIA
K. Lavanya
Versus
G. Venkataraman
C.R.P. (NPD) No.615 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010
Decided on : 16-07-2010
For the Petitioner:K. Govi Ganesan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:N. Mala, Advocate.
Interim maintenance awarded during divorce proceedings does not continue to benefit the recipient after the conclusion of the proceedings.
Headnote:
Interim Maintenance - Divorce Proceedings - The court dismissed the application for enforcing arrears of interim maintenance, holding that the interim order awarding maintenance during the pendency of the divorce proceedings would not benefit the petitioner after the proceedings were concluded.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed for divorce and sought interim maintenance. The maintenance was awarded during the divorce proceedings, which were later concluded in favor of the respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal and a subsequent application to enforce the arrears of interim maintenance accrued after the conclusion of the divorce proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the application, stating that the interim maintenance awarded during the divorce proceedings would not benefit the petitioner after the proceedings were concluded.
Issues: Enforcement of arrears of interim maintenance after conclusion of divorce proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the interim maintenance awarded during the pendency of the divorce proceedings would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner after the proceedings were concluded.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The concerned miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Inveighing the order dated 6. 2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Villupuram in I.A.No.247 of 2008 in C.M.A.No.16 of 2006 in H.M.O.P.No.82 of 2002, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. Heard both sides.
3. A summation and summarization of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:
The respondent herein filed H.M.O.P.No.82 of 2002 seeking divorce as against the revision petitioner herein. During the pendency of the HMOP, petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed seeking interim maintenance and the same was awarded. It so happened that the HMOP was allowed. Being aggrieved by such order in allowing the HMOP, the revision petitioner herein preferred appeal in C.M.A.No.16 of 2006. During the pendency of the said appeal I.A.No.247 of 2008 was filed so as to enforce the arrears, which alleged to have accrued even after the disposal of H.M.O.P.No.82 of 2002. It appears that the interim order of maintenance was passed by the Court during the pendency of the H.M.O.P.No.82 of 2002. The Appellate Court after hearing both sides and referring to various decisions in this regard, dismissed the application by giving a specific finding that the interim order awarding interim maintenance, during the pendency of the H.M.O.P.No.82 of 2002 would not enure to the benefit of the revision petitioner herein after the H.M.O.P.No.82 of 2002 having been disposed of.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this revision has been filed.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds of revision, would develop his argument to the effect that once under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act interim maintenance was awarded then that would enure to the benefit of the person concerned till the matrimonial proceedings are over even before the Appellate Authority. However, despite granting ample opportunity, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner did not produce any precedents in support of his proposition. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would invite the attention of this Court to the following decisions and would develop her argument that absolutely, there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the Appellate Court in dismissing the said application. Certain excerpts from those decisions would run thus:
1. Kashi Math Samsthan and Another v. Srimad Sudhindra Thlrtha Swamy and Another (2010) 3 MLJ 351: 2010 SAR (Civil) 1 (Supreme Court) at p.353 of MLJ:
“10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order of the High Court as well as the judgment of the trial Court, which dismissed the suit of the appellants in respect of which, appeals are now pending before the High Court for final adjudication. Before us, Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that since an interim order or status quo regarding the functioning of the Mathadhipathi of the Math was operative during the pendency of the suit and triable issues have to be gone into by the High Court in the First appeals, it was fit and proper for the High Court to direct the parties to maintain the interim order which was granted by the trial Court during the pendency of the suit. This submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellants was hotly contented by Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. According to Mr. Venugopal, since the appellants could not make out any prima facie case to get an interim order of injunction during the pendency of the appeals, question of continuance of the interim order, which was granted by the trial Court during the pendency of the suit, cannot arise at all.
11. Having heard the learned senior counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order and also the judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit of the appellants, we do not fi
