IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, J.
Mrs. Suganthi - Petitioner
Vs.
S.Sanganasamy - Respondent
Tr.C.M.P.No.847 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.14519 of 2022
Decided On : 21-12-2022
Interim Maintenance - Transfer of Case - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 19, Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition to withdraw the case from the Sub Court at Aruppukottai and transfer it to the Mahila Court at Alandur to be tried along with another case. The respondent-husband was directed to pay interim maintenance for the welfare of the minor child. The court considered the principles regarding transfer petitions in matrimonial cases and ordered the transfer of the cases to the Family Court at Chennai.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent-husband was directed to pay interim maintenance for the welfare of the minor child and ordered the transfer of the cases to the Family Court at Chennai.
Issues: The issues involved the transfer of the case, payment of interim maintenance, and the welfare of the minor child.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of parents to maintain their minor children and considered the principles of social justice and positive state action for the empowerment of women and children. It also highlighted the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, specifically Section 19, and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition was allowed, and the cases were transferred to the Family Court at Chennai. The respondent-husband was directed to pay interim maintenance for the minor child, and the final maintenance amount was to be determined by the Competent Court after adjudication.
ORDER :
The present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to withdraw the case in HMOP No.148 of 2021 from the file of the Sub Court at Aruppukottai and transfer the same to the file of the Mahila Court at Alandur to be tried along with MC No.38 of 2022.
2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 07.02.2011 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. From and out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent, a female child was born now aged about 10 years old school going child. Due to misunderstanding, both the petitioner and the respondent are living separately.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent filed HMOP No.148 of 2021 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion before the Sub Court at Aruppukottai. The petitioner filed MC No.38 of 2022 on the file of the Mahila Court at Alandur, which is pending. The minor 10 year old female child is under the custody of the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent-husband on instructions made a submission that he is ready and willing to pay an interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to his minor daughter aged about 10 years old. The maintenance to be fixed is to be adjudicated before the Court concerned in the maintenance case, which was already instituted by the petitioner-wife.
5. In view of the undertaking given by the respondent-husband that he will pay the interim maintenance, he is directed to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month for the welfare of the 10 year old female minor child and the said interim maintenance amount is to be paid from December 2022 onwards. The payment is to be made on or before the 10th day of every calendar month to the Bank Account of the petitioner, who in turn has to spend the said amount for the welfare of the minor girl child.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent is not even paying any Interim Maintenance even to the minor girl child, who is school going and that apart, he has filed the divorce petition before the Family Court at Aruppukottai to harass the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent objected the said contention by stating that the respondent is willing to take care of the minor child and the petitioner is not allowing the respondent to see the child and therefore, he is not in a position to pay the Interim Maintenance.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent reiterated that unless the petitioner permits the respondent to visit the child, he will not be in a position to pay the Interim Maintenance. The tenor of the respondent expressed through the learned counsel for the respondent shows the attitude and conduct of the respondent, who is none other than the father of the 10 year old child. Such an approach of the respondent, who is a public servant at no circumstances be encouraged by this Court.
9. Parents are duty bound to maintain their minor children. The 10 year old child has to be taken care of by the father, who is the natural guardian and an earning member. The petitioner-wife is unemployed and therefore, the respondent-father has to maintain the child.
10. For grant of Interim Maintenance to the minor children, no application is required. Even in the absence of any application, the Courts are bound to consider grant of Interim Maintenance in the interest of the minor children and to protect their livelihood, which is the Fundamental Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
11. Remedy of maintenance is the measure of social justice as envisaged under the Constitution to prevent the wife and the children from falling into destitution and vagrancy. Preamble and Article 39 and 15(3) of the Indian Constitution envisage social justice and positive State action for empowerment of women and children.
12. Many citizen in our Great Nation on account of certain matrimonial issues, never think of filing a formal petition for maintenance even to t
Mona Aresh Goel vs. Aresh Satya Goel (2000) 9 SCC 255
Geeta Heera vs. Harish Chander Heera
AI
The duty of parents to maintain their minor children, principles of social justice, and the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and Article 21 of the Constitution of India were central to the judgme....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of parents to maintain their minor children, the court's role as a custodian of minor children, and the need to interpret provisions in ma....
The duty of parents to maintain their minor children and the constitutional obligation to protect their livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The duty of parents to maintain their minor children and the constitutional obligation to grant Interim Maintenance influenced the court's decision.
The duty of parents to maintain their minor children and the court's obligation to grant interim maintenance to protect the livelihood of the children during matrimonial disputes.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.