IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Tmt. K. Sumithra – Petitioner
Versus
R.P. Duraibabu @ Kannan – Respondent
Tr. C.M.P. No. 1236 of 2022, C.M.P. Nos. 20993, 20994 of 2022
Decided On : 05-01-2023
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 24 –Fundamental Right – Article 21 – Indian Constitution envisage social justice – Article 39, 15 (3) – Dissolution of Marriage – Hindu Rites and Customs – petition for transfer is filed to withdraw and transfer petition filed in FCOP from file of Family Court, file of VI Additional Family Court, Chennai, to be tried along with M.C., which is pending – Held, Considering facts and circumstances, FCOP pending on file of Family Court, stands transferred to VI Additional Family Court, Chennai forthwith – Family Court, is directed to transmit case papers to VI Additional Family Court, Chennai to be tried along with M.C within a period of four (4) weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order – VI Additional Family Court, Chennai is directed to consider for grant of interim maintenance, without causing any undue delay – Petition allowed.
ORDER :
Prayer: Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code to withdraw the FCOP No. 57 of 2022 from the file of the Family Court, Chengalpattu and to transfer the same to the VI Additional Family Court, Chennai to try along with M.C. No. 41 of 2020.
1. The petition for transfer is filed to withdraw and transfer the petition filed in FCOP No. 57 of 2022 from the file of the Family Court, Chengalpattu to the file of the VI Additional Family Court, Chennai, to be tried along with M.C. No. 41 of 2020, which is pending.
2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 25.04.2010 as per the 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 11 years. Due to misunderstanding, the petitioner and the respondent are living separately. The respondent/husband filed FCOP No. 57 of 2022 before the Family Court, Chengalpattu for Dissolution of Marriage. The petitioner/wife has filed a Maintenance Case in M.C. No. 41 of 2020 on the file of the VI Additional Family Court, Chennai. The petitioner/wife is unemployed and now residing along with her parents at Chennai and depending on them for her livelihood. Further, she has to take care of the female child, who is school going. Thus, the petitioner is not in a position to spend, travel and contest the case filed by the respondent/husband.
3. This Court is of the considered opinion that the disputes are no way connected with the maintenance of a minor child. Dispute between the husband and wife is to be resolved in the manner known to law or they can go for Conciliation for reunion or otherwise. However, the interest of the minor child is of paramount importance and the Courts are bound to protect the interest of the minor children at all circumstances.
4. In the present case, the 11 year old female child is being maintained by the petitioner/wife. Contribution of the father is to be made and in the present case, admittedly, the respondent-father is not paying any maintenance, despite the fact that the Maintenance Case in M.C. No. 41 of 2020 was already filed. The trial Court also failed to consider grant of interim maintenance in such circumstances. Interim maintenance is to be granted, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. If there is a minor child and the child is to be maintained by the mother, then interim maintenance is to be ordered by the Courts even if there is no application from either of the parties or otherwise.
5. Maintenance being the livelihood of a child and Right to Life being an integral part of Article 21 and a Fundamental Right, the Courts are bound to interfere in such circumstances and ensure that the maintenance of the children are protected at all circumstances even during the sustenance of the Matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife. The agony of the child and its mental condition during the period of dispute between father and mother, all to be taken note of and the interim maintenance is to be ordered by the Courts even if there is no application or otherwise.
6. The quantum of maintenance to be ordered is to be considered based on the income status and lifestyle of the parties before the Court. Remedy of maintenance is a measure of social justice and envisaged under the Constitution to prevent the children from falling into destitution and vagrancy. Preamble of the Constitution and Article 39 and 15 (3) of the Indian Constitution envisage social justice and positive State action for empowerment of women and children. Thus, maintenance being the livelihood even in the absence of any petition by the parties, the Court must order interim maintenance, taking note of the interest of the minor child and in the present case, the child is aged about 11 years old and School going.
7. This being the endeavour of this Court to ensure interim maintenance to be paid to the child for her maintenance, the actual maintenance to be
Geeta Heera vs. Harish Chander Heera
Mona Aresh Goel vs. Aresh Satya Goel
SupremeToday
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, 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....
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.