IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, J.
M.Mahalakshmi - Petitioner
Vs.
M.Vijayakumar - Respondent
Tr.C.M.P.No.567 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.9934 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 sought to transfer a divorce case from the Family Court at Pudukkottai to the Sub Court at Ponneri, citing financial constraints and the need to care for the minor child. The respondent, a Village Administrative Officer, was not paying Interim Maintenance for the minor child, leading to the petitioner's inability to contest the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's conduct was unacceptable, emphasizing the duty of parents to maintain their minor children. It highlighted the obligation to grant Interim Maintenance in the interest of the minor children, as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court also referred to the principles regarding transfer petitions in matrimonial cases, emphasizing the preference for the wife's jurisdiction in such matters.
Issues: Financial constraints, duty of parents to maintain minor children, transfer of matrimonial cases, and Interim Maintenance
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the duty of parents to maintain their minor children, the constitutional obligation to grant Interim Maintenance, and the principles regarding transfer petitions in matrimonial cases.
Final Decision: The court allowed the transfer of the divorce case, directed the respondent to pay Interim Maintenance to the minor child, and provided measures for enforcement, emphasizing the duty of parents to maintain their children.
ORDER :
The transfer petition is filed to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.152 of 2021 from the file of the Family Court at Pudukkottai and transfer the same to the file of Sub Court at Ponneri.
2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 26.05.2010 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. One female child was born from and out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent and now aged about 10 years and school going. Due to some misunderstanding, the petitioner and the respondent are living separately.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is unemployed and now residing along with her parents. She has to take care of her 10 years old female child and spend for her education. The respondent is working as Village Administrative Officer (VAO) in the Revenue Department and earning substantial amount. The respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.152 of 2022 for Dissolution of Marriage on the file of the Family Court at Pudukottai. Therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to spend, travel and contest the case filed by the respondent.
4. 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 Pudukottai to harass the petitioner.
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 10 year old child. Such an approach of the respondent, who is a public servant at no circumstances be encouraged by this Court.
7. 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.
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 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. Grandparents are burdened with the minor children and the fathers are attempting to escape from the clutches of liability, which cannot be tolerated by the Courts. The father being the natural guardian under the Guardian and Wards Act, is bound to maintain his minor daughter or son by paying ma
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 and the constitutional obligation to grant Interim Maintenance influenced the court's decision.
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 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 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 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.