SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Mad) 2760

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, JJ.
K. Gurusamy - Appellant
Versus
G. Malliga - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1409 of 2017
Decided On : 06-07-2017

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. P. Srinivas
For the Respondent: Mr. N. Manokaran

Headnote:

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 18 (2) and 18(2)(f) - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 24 - This appeal is filed by appellant/husband, questioning correctness of the order passed by Family Court, Erode in I.A. No. 1061 in FCOP No. 258 which was filed by wife/respondent herein - Appellant herein has filed FCOP No. 258 before the Family Court, praying to grant a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage solemnised between him and respondent - Pending Original Petition, wife/respondent has filed I.A. No. 1061 in FCOP No. 258 under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act praying to direct appellant to pay a sum towards interim maintenance and another sum towards litigation expenses - Application filed by wife/ respondent was contested by husband/appellant - Family Court, after hearing both sides and taking into consideration evidence available on record, allowed the application filed by the wife/respondent herein and directed the husband/appellant to pay a sum towards monthly maintenance and towards litigation expense - Aggrieved by said order, husband/ appellant is before this Court with this appeal – Held, Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act empowers Court in any proceeding under Act - If it appears to Court that either wife or husband, as case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of proceeding, it may, on application of any one of them order other party to pay to petitioner expenses of proceeding and monthly maintenance as may seem to be reasonable during the proceeding, having regard to also income of both the applicant and the respondent - Section, however, does not use the word maintenance, but word support can be interpreted to mean as Section 24 is intended to provide for maintenance pendente lite - Court must take into consideration status of the parties and the capacity of spouse to pay maintenance and whether the applicant has any independent income sufficient for her or his support - Maintenance is always dependent upon factual situation, Court should, therefore, mould the claim for maintenance determining the quantum based on various factors brought before the Court - Court are of the view that the Family Court, Erode is right in directing the appellant to pay interim maintenance and litigation expenses to the respondent and we do not find any infirmity in the said order - In result, Court confirm the Order on the file of Family Court, Erode - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is therefore dismissed - Having regard to facts and circumstances of case, court direct Family Court, to dispose of on its file within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment - Consequently, CMP is closed.

JUDGMENT :

R. Subbiah, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellant/husband, questioning the correctness of the order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the Family Court, Erode in I.A. No. 1061 of 2016 in FCOP No. 258 of 2016, which was filed by the wife/respondent herein.

2. The appellant herein has filed FCOP No. 258 of 2016 before the Family Court, Erode praying to grant a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage solemnised between him and the respondent on 11.06.1986. Pending the Original Petition, the wife/respondent has filed I.A. No. 1061 of 2016 in FCOP No. 258 of 2016 under Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act praying to direct the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards interim maintenance and another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. The application filed by the wife/ respondent was contested by the husband/appellant. The Family Court, after hearing both sides and taking into consideration the evidence available on record, allowed the application filed by the wife/respondent herein and directed the husband/appellant to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards monthly maintenance and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. Aggrieved by the said order, the husband/ appellant is before this Court with this appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that earlier, the respondent herein has filed M.C. No. 42 of 2005 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode. In the said proceedings, while adducing evidence, the respondent has categorically admitted that she has converted herself from Hinduism to Christianity six years back. The respondent has further stated that she is not willing to live with the appellant herein. Taking note of such evidence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode dismissed M.C. No. 42 of 2005 filed by the respondent herein on 25.07.2008. While so, the present petition filed by the respondent under Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act is not maintenable. The Family Court, Erode, without taking into account the evidence recorded in M.C. No. 42 of 2005 has erroneously directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month as interim maintenance and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the respondent. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant invited the attention of this Court to Section 18 (2) of The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, wherein it is stated that a Hindu Wife is entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance and as per Section 18 (2) (f) of the said Act, she is entitled to be maintained by her husband during her life time, if he (husband) is ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion. In this case, the wife/ respondent herein has converted herself from Hinduism to Christianity and living separately therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Family Court, Erode, without considering the above legal position, has erroneously awarded interim maintenance to the respondent and therefore, he prayed for setting aside the order passed by the court below.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the wife/respondent herein, by placing reliance on the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of (Manish Jain vs. Akanksha Jain) reported in AIR 2017 SC 1640 would contend that Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act does not use the word 'maintenance' rather, the word 'support' alone is used therein and a harmonial interpretation to the provisions contained in Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act would unfold the intention of the legislature to provide financial support to the husband or wife as the case may be during the pendency of the matrimonial proceedings. The conversion of the husband or wife as the case may be to any other religion cannot be decided by the Court in an application filed under Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act. The F







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top