Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (MADURAI BENCH)
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
P.K. NAGARAJAN @ MEENAKSHISUNDARAM — Appellant
Vs.
N. JEYARANI, P.K.N. KARUPPASAMY AND N. JEYARAJAN — Respondent
Criminal R.C. (MD). No's. 570 and 609 of 2013 and M.P. (MD). No's. 1 and 2 of 2013
Decided on : 30-01-2014
The court set aside the order of the trial court granting interim maintenance and residential protection order to the wife and children under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal. The court held that the trial court did not consider the income of the husband and the wife's ability to maintain herself and her children, and that the wife was entitled to claim maintenance from the husband until he proved the ground of adultery against her. The court also directed the husband to pay interim maintenance to the children until the disposal of the main case.
Fact of the Case:
The wife filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking interim maintenance and residential protection order against her husband. The trial court granted the interim relief. The husband filed a revision petition challenging the order of the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the order of the trial court granting interim maintenance and residential protection order to the wife and children under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal. The court held that the trial court did not consider the income of the husband and the wife's ability to maintain herself and her children, and that the wife was entitled to claim maintenance from the husband until he proved the ground of adultery against her. The court also directed the husband to pay interim maintenance to the children until the disposal of the main case.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in granting interim maintenance and residential protection order to the wife and children without considering the income of the husband and the wife's ability to maintain herself and her children? 2. Whether the wife is entitled to claim maintenance from the husband until he proves the ground of adultery against her?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the trial court erred in granting interim maintenance and residential protection order to the wife and children without considering the income of the husband and the wife's ability to maintain herself and her children. The court observed that the trial court did not record a finding on the income of the husband on a definite basis per month, and that it did not consider the wife's ability to maintain herself and her children. The court held that the trial court should have considered these factors before granting the interim relief. 2. The court held that the wife is entitled to claim maintenance from the husband until he proves the ground of adultery against her. The court observed that the husband is bound to maintain his wife, and that he cannot wriggle out of his statutory obligation to pay maintenance to the wife and his children. The court held that the wife is entitled to claim maintenance from the husband until he proves the ground of adultery against her in the divorce proceedings.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the trial court granting interim maintenance and residential protection order to the wife and children under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal. The court also directed the husband to pay interim maintenance to the children until the disposal of the main case.
M. Venugopal, J.
Crl.R.C. No. 570 of 2013
1. The Revision Petitioner/Husband has projected the present Criminal Revision before this Court as against the order dated 27.06.2013 in Cr.M.P. No. 47 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 1 of 2012 passed by the Learned Family Court Judge, Madurai.
Crl.R.C. No. 609 of 2013:
The Revision Petitioners/Wife and Children have preferred the instant Criminal Revision as against the order dated 27.06.2013 in Cr.M.P. No. 47 of 2012 passed by the Learned Family Court Judge, Madurai in so far as dismissing the claim of maintenance of the 1st Petitioner/Wife.
The Learned Family Court Judge, Madurai, while passing the impugned order in Cr.M.P. No. 47 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 1 of 2012 dated 27.06.2013 [filed by the Respondents (Wife and Children)], has, in paragraphs 10 and 11, inter alia, observed and held as follows:
10. As per evidence she left the matrimonial home from October 2008. But she filed this application in the year 2009 and the address of the respondent also given in D. No. 73 & 74 South Veli Street, Madurai. The respondent also received notice which was served by this Court in the same address. The respondent also admits that he is residing in the said house. Admittedly, it is a matrimonial home where the petitioner is entitled to reside along with the respondent. Admittedly children are studying in the School at Madurai. Considering their welfare, this Court permitted the petitioner to reside in the house D. No. 73 & 74, South veli Street, Madurai and in respect of the relief of protection to reside in that house, the petitioner is directed to approach concern police station, if she felt any in security in future, accordingly the petition is allowed.
11. In the result, the petition is allowed as follows:-
(1) the respondent directed to pay the school fees as per Ex. P.1 and Ex. P.2 which is related to the period of 2010-2011
(2) the respondent is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to each of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners for the school fees related to the period 2012-2013
(3) the respondent is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. to each of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners towards interim maintenance (totally Rs. 6,000/- p.m.) till the disposal of the main application
4. With regard to maintenance of the 1st petitioner, the petition is dismissed
5. the petitioner is permitted to reside in the house D. No. 73 & 74 South veli Street, Madurai and in respect of the relief of protection to reside in that house, the petitioner is directed to approach concern police station if she felt any in security in future.
2. Petition Averments of the Respondents/Wife and Children (Petitioners in Crl.R.C. No. 609 of 2013):
(i) The Revision Petitioner is her husband and the marriage between them was solemnised on 22.05.1988 at Tamil Nadu Chamber of Commerce, Madurai Town. They resided at 18, Arumuga Aasari Lane, South Gate, Madurai. Thereafter, they resided at Ramachandrapuram and finally resided at D. No. 73-74, South Veli Street, Madurai along with her two sons till she was driven out from the house in the month of October 2008. Their lost living together was at the house which belong to the Revision Petitioner/Husband and the same is not rented house.
(ii) The Revision Petitioner/Husband hails from a reputed business family in Madurai. The father of the Revision Petitioner/Husband P. Karuppasamy Nadar established a Multi Crore Business in Textile Showroom and other fields. At the time of partition, the textile showroom was in the name and style of P. Karuppasamy Nadar Corporation and huge amount of movable and immovable assets were allotted to him.
(iii) After she was driven out from the matrimonial house by the Revision Petitioner/Husband during October 2008, she had to stay at her parents house at Thalavaipuram, Virudhunagar District and her two sons were put up in a private hostel at Madurai to complete their academic year at Vikasa School at Ponnagaram Compound, Madurai. In March 2010, she along with her two m
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
