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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 1006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, J.
Vishnupriya - Petitioner
Vs.
S.Jagadeesan - Respondent
Tr.C.M.P.No.763 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.13024 of 2022
Decided On : 21-12-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms.M.Adhishree for Mr.N.Manoharan

The duty of parents to maintain their minor children, the principles of social justice under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the interpretation of jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act were central to the judgment.

Headnote:

Interim Maintenance - Transfer of Case - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 19, Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Social Justice - Custody of Minor Children

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition to transfer the divorce case from the Family Court at Perambalur to the Sub Court at Kallakurichi due to her unemployment and inability to travel with her 2-year-old child. The respondent objected, claiming willingness to care for the child but not paying Interim Maintenance due to the petitioner's refusal to allow visitation.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the father is duty-bound to maintain the minor child, and Interim Maintenance is essential to protect the child's livelihood. It emphasized the social justice provisions under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the duty of the Court to act as a custodian of minor children when neglected by parents.

Issues: The issues revolved around the transfer of the divorce case, Interim Maintenance for the minor child, and the father's visitation rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the principles of social justice, the duty of parents to maintain their children, and the interpretation of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act to determine jurisdiction based on the wife's residence. It emphasized the importance of considering the difficulties faced by the wife in matrimonial proceedings.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the transfer of the divorce case to the Sub Court at Kallakurichi, directed the respondent to pay Interim Maintenance to the minor child, and granted the petitioner liberty to file for final maintenance. The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition was allowed with no order as to costs.

ORDER :

The present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to withdraw the case in HMOP No.65 of 2021 from the file of the Family Court at Perambalur and transfer the same to the file of the Sub Court at Kallakurichi to be tried along with HMOP No.82 of 2022.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 11.11.2018 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. From and out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent, one male child was born now aged about 2 years old. 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.65 of 2021 for dissolution of marriage before the Family Court at Perambalur. The petitioner filed HMOP No.82 of 2022 before the Sub Court at Kallakurichi for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner is unemployed and she is depending on her parents. The petitioner and her two year old male child are now residing along with her parents at Kallakurichi. Thus, she is not in a position to travel all along from Kallakurichi to Perambalur and contest the dissolution of marriage filed by the respondent in HMOP No.65 of 2021 before the Family Court at Perambalur.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent is working in Information Technology Sector and the petitioner is unemployed. The petitioner has to maintain her two year old male child and she is depending on her parents both for her livelihood and for the maintenance of her two year old male child. The respondent-husband is not paying Interim Maintenance to the child as well as the petitioner-wife.

5. 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.

6. 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 2 year old child. Such an approach of the respondent, at no circumstances, be encouraged by this Court.

7. Parents are duty bound to maintain their minor children. The 2 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. Many citizen in our Great Nation on account of certain matrimonial issues, never think of filing a formal petition for maintenance even to the minor children. In such circumstances, Courts are expected to consider and grant Interim Maintenance to protect the livelihood of the minor children during the pendency of the matrimonial disputes between the husband and wife.

11. Court must act as a custodian of minor children, when such children are neglected by either of the parents. When the mother of the child is unemployed and living along with her parents mostly is the situation prevailing in our country. Grandpar

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top