Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T.ASHA, J.
Tamilarasu & Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
Sumathi - Respondent
C.R.P.(NPD).No.976 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 of 2006
Decided On : 27-08-2018
For the Petitioners: Mr. C.Prakasam
For the Respondent: Mr. K.Subburam
Non-payment of decreed maintenance amounts and the requirement of evidence to support claims are crucial legal principles established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Civil Procedure - O.S.No.639 of 1996 - E.P.No.164 of 2005 - The court discussed the provisions of maintenance under O.S.No.639 of 1996 and the execution proceedings under E.P.No.164 of 2005, emphasizing the non-payment of maintenance amounts by the petitioners and the lack of evidence to support their claim of the respondent's remarriage and delivery of a boy baby.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed O.S.No.639 of 1996 seeking maintenance and other reliefs due to ill-treatment and dowry harassment by the petitioners. The court decreed the suit, but the petitioners failed to pay the maintenance amounts, leading to the execution proceedings in E.P.No.164 of 2005.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had not paid the maintenance amounts decreed in O.S.No.639 of 1996 and lacked evidence to support their claim of the respondent's remarriage and delivery of a boy baby. Therefore, the court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition and confirmed the order of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge.
Issues: Non-payment of maintenance amounts, validity of the claim regarding the respondent's remarriage and delivery of a boy baby.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioners' failure to pay the decreed maintenance amounts and the lack of evidence to support their claim influenced the court's decision to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition and confirm the lower court's order.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, and the order of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge in E.P.No.164 of 2005 is confirmed.
The above Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the Judgment Debtor challenging the order dated 03.03.2006 in E.P.No.164 of 2005 in O.S.No.639 of 1996 on the file of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode.
2. The brief resume of the facts is necessary to put the issue in perspective:
The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.639 of 1996 for the following reliefs:
(1) directing the 1st defendant to pay the plaintiff Rs.2,500/- per month from 10.11.1994 till her life time towards her maintenance;
(2) directing the 1st respondent to pay the plaintiff Rs.41,250/- towards her past maintenance with interest thereon at 18% per annum from 23.06.1993 until payment in full;
(3) directing the defendants 1 to 3 to pay the plaintiff Rs.1,85,000/- with interest thereon at 18% per annum from the date of suit until payment in full;
(4) Creating a charge over the under mentioned properties for the due payment of the decree amount; and
(5) directing the defendants 1 to 3 to pay the costs of the suit.
3. The plaintiff had submitted that she had married the 1st respondent on 06.03.1992 and right from the beginning she was subjected to torture and ill treatment by the respondents namely her husband, her father-in-law, the 1st petitioner herein, her mother-in-law and her brother-in-law, the 3rd petitioner herein. She contended that at the time of marriage, her father had provided her with money and jewelery in keeping with their status as a middle class agricultural family. She was given jewelery weighing 30 sovereigns and silk sarees and other furniture apart from cash. On 20.06.1993, the respondent was beaten and driven out of her matrimonial home. She had immediately lodged a dowry harassment case. She also comes to learn that the 1st petitioner herein has remarried one Latha and in order to preempt the respondent herein from proceeding with the criminal action, the 1st respondent and his family members had pretended to settle the matter. But, ultimately they were ready to offer only a pittance leaving the petitioner with no other remedy except to file the above suit for reliefs stated therein.
4. The 1st respondent had filed a written statement which was adopted by the petitioners 2 and 3 in which he had denied the contentions raised by the respondent and had also come forward with the case that the respondent was already in a relationship with an other person and was not inclined to continue her matrimonial life. The 1st petitioner had contended that the marriage had not been consummated and the respondent had returned to her family on her own volition. He had also contended that he had filed proceedings for divorce in HMOP No.92 of 1994. He denied his liability to maintain the respondents stating that the respondent is owning 12 acres of agricultural land apart from 2 acres of land that she had inherited from her maternal grandmother and the lands being fertile lands, the respondent was possessed of sufficient funds and income to maintain herself.
5. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, by Judgment and Decree dated 01.09.1999 decreed the suit filed by the respondent by directing the 1st petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.750/- per month towards her maintenance from 10.11.1994 and to pay a sum of Rs.12,375/- towards part maintenance from 23.06.1993 till 09.11.1994 and also, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- which was given in Cash by the respondent. A charge was also created over the properties of the respondent for the aforesaid sum. This Judgment and Decree was taken up on appeal by the petitioners in A.S.No.41 of 2001 and by a Judgment and Decree dated 12.06.2001, the first appeal was also dismissed.
6. Since the petitioners did not come forward to pay the maintenance, the respondent herein had filed E.P.No.164 of 2005 on the file of the learned I Additional Sub Judge, Erode to bring the properties for sale. The petitioners herein had entered appearance in the execution proceedings and contested the same and that the said E.P. was p
