Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2334
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, C. SARAVANAN, JJ.
Ashok Subramaniam - Appellant
Versus
C. Srividhya - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 1354 and 1355 of 2018
Decided On : 09-08-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Menon
For the Respondent: Mrs. K. Sumathi
Headnote:
Hindu Marriage Act – Sections 9, 24, 25 and 26 - Misunderstanding Cropped Up Between Couple It Led - Marriage between appellant and respondent was on at Second Street as per Hindu rites and customs - Marriage was a love marriage and it was accepted by parents of both sides - Due to wedlock between appellant and respondent a Male Child was born on who was named as Since misunderstanding cropped up between couple it led to frequent quarrel between them - While so during respondent left matrimonial company of appellant along with minor son and stayed in her parent house - appellant waited for a year with hope that respondent would return to matrimonial home and of many efforts made by appellant through his relatives and common friends there was no sign of respondent returning to matrimonial home - In such circumstances left with no other alternative appellant has of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights - On notice respondent filed a counter affidavit in repudiating all averments made therein – Held, it was noted that husband therein is financially capable of paying maintenance and therefore taking note of status of appellant maintenance amount was enhanced by Honourable Supreme Court - In present case as we have already held respondent is financially resourceful enough and she is in a position to maintain herself through her employment and salary received thereof - Therefore we hold that Court below ought not to have directed appellant to pay one time litigation expenses to respondent at refusing to direct appellant to pay maintenance to respondent she has not filed any appeal - At same time we feel that appellant being a father of minor child is having a pious obligation to maintain his minor son - In such circumstances we hold that sum awarded by Court below is to be reduced to which appellant is bound to pay towards maintenance of minor child every month - Further educational expenses as well as medical expenses of minor son has to be shared equally by appellant and respondent at actuals inasmuch as respondent is also employed and earning amount – Order Accordingly.
R. Subbiah, J.
Both these appeals are filed by the appellant questioning the correctness and validity of the common order dated 17.11.2017 passed by the learned VII Additional Principal Judge, Chennai in I.A. No. 780 and 781 of 2015 in OP No. 2812 of 2013.
2. CMA No. 1354 of 2018 is filed as against the order dated 17.11.2017 passed in I.A. No. 781 of 2015 in OP No. 2812 of 2013. The said I.A. No. 781 of 2015 was filed by the respondent herein under Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act praying to direct the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month as maintenance to her and Rs.1,00,000/- towards litigation expenses. The Family Court refused to direct the appellant to pay any maintenance to her, however directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses to the respondent.
3. C.M.A. No. 1355 of 2018 is filed as against the Order dated 17.11.2017 passed in I.A. No. 780 of 2015 in OP No. 2812 of 2012, which was filed by the respondent herein under Section 26 of The Hindu Marriage Act to direct the appellant herein to pay Rs.30,000/- per month to the minor son as maintenance and towards educational expenses. The Family Court directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month towards maintenance of the minor son and also to meet his educational and medical expenses as and when required.
4. As both the appeals arise out of a common order dated 17.11.2017 passed by the Family Court, they are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common Judgment.
5. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 04.02.2005 at Gandhimathi Kalyana Mandapam, No.11, Second Street, North Boag Road, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 017 as per Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was a love marriage and it was accepted by the parents of both sides. Due to the wedlock between the appellant and the respondent, a Male Child was born on 18.03.2009 who was named as Dyutidher Ashok. Since misunderstanding cropped up between the couple, it led to frequent quarrel between them. While so, during March 2012, the respondent left the matrimonial company of the appellant along with the minor son and stayed in her parents house. The appellant waited for a year with the hope that the respondent would return to the matrimonial home and inspite of many efforts made by the appellant through his relatives and common friends there was no sign of the respondent returning to the matrimonial home. In such circumstances, left with no other alternative, the appellant has filed HMOP No. 2812 of 2013 under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.
6. On notice, the respondent filed a counter affidavit in OP No. 2812 of 2013 repudiating all the averments made therein.
7. Pending OP No. 2812 of 2013, the respondent filed I.A. No. 780 of 2015 under Section 26 of The Hindu Marriage Act praying to direct the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month towards maintenance and educational expenses of the minor son. That apart, the respondent has also filed I.A. No. 781 of 2015 under Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act praying to direct the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month towards her maintenance besides Rs.1,00,000/- towards litigation expenses.
8. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A. Nos. 780 and 781 of 2015, it was contended by the respondent that the appellant is working as Application Manager in RSS Technologies and earning Rs.16,00,000/- per annum and therefore, as a father, he is bound to pay maintenance to the minor son that apart she is also entitled for maintenance. It was further stated that the respondent is also employed at Temenos and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.58,000/-. According to the respondent, her father is aged 67 years, a pensioner and the pension amount that her father receives is just and sufficient to meet his own medical expenses. Further, mother of the respondent is also a pensioner and with the pension
