IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
J. Sathiyavani – Petitioner
Versus
S. Nijanthan – Respondent
Tr. C.M.P. No. 1254 of 2022, C.M.P. No. 21309 of 2022
Decided On : 27-01-2023
Constitution of India, 1949 - Article 39 and 15 - Civil Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 24 - Hindu Rites and Customs – Certain principles of policy to be followed by the state - Present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to withdraw case in from file of III Additional Family Court at Chennai and transfer same to file of Family Court at Chengalpattu – Held, Case considered petitioner is now living along with her parents case filed by petitioner pending on file of III Additional Family Court at Chennai is to be transferred to place petitioner now resides - Responsibility of father being primary in nature, fathers are duty bound to maintain minor matrimonial disputes between spouses - Denial of visitation right is not a ground to grant exemption from payment of maintenance - Visitation right is to be decided based not connected with grant of maintenance to minor child children - Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed.
ORDER :
Prayer: This Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw the case in HMOP No. 226 of 2022 from the file of the III Additional Family Court at Chennai and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court at Chengalpattu.
1. The present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to withdraw the case in HMOP No. 226 of 2022 from the file of the III Additional Family Court at Chennai and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court at Chengalpattu.
2. The marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnised on 23.01.2013 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. One male baby was born out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent. The child is under the custody of the petitioner. Due to misunderstanding the petitioner and the respondent are now living separately.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that initially she stayed at Purasawakkam at Chennai and hence she filed petition for dissolution of marriage before the III Additional Family Court at Chennai. The petitioner is unemployed and now she and her male minor child are living with her parents at Guduvanchery. The petitioner and her male minor child are depending on her parents in all respects. Thus she is not in a position to travel all along from Guduvancherry to Chennai to contest the divorce case filed by her before the III Additional Family Court at Chennai.
4. On 25.01.2023, the respondent-husband appeared in person before this Court and made a submission that he is willing for re-union and in view of the said submission, this Court directed the petitioner to be present along with the child before this Court on 27.01.2023.
5. Today i.e. on 27.01.2023, when the matter is taken up for further hearing, both the petitioner along with the child and the respondent are present before this Court.
6. The petitioner-wife made a submission that for the past about 4 years she is living separately along with her minor male child in her parents house at Guduvancherry. The respondent-husband has not even paid any monthly maintenance for the welfare of the child so far. The petitioner-wife further says that even in the year 2017, when she left the respondent-husband, he was earning a substantial amount as salary in Singapore and as of now, he is earning more than that.
7. Despite the fact that the respondent-husband is earning substantial amount as salary in Singapore, he has not paid the maintenance even to his own child. Regarding the matrimonial disputes, the parties are at liberty to adjudicate the same in the divorce petition filed.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent, based on the instructions given by the respondent, made a submission that the respondent is ready and willing to pay the Interim Maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the child. The respondent has given an undertaking to pay Interim Maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month.
9. The respondent, being the father, is responsible for the maintenance of the child. Thus he has to share the maintenance along with the petitioner for the livelihood of the child, which is now with the custody of the petitioner-wife. The Interim Maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month is directed to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner on or before the 10th day of every calendar month, which is to be deposited in the Bank Account of the petitioner and the learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that she will furnish the details of the petitioner-wife Bank Account Number to the learned counsel for the respondent, who in turn has to provide such information to the respondent-husband.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent reiterated that the petitioner shall permit the respondent to visit the child, whenever he comes to India.
11. Parents are duty bound to maintain their minor children. The minor male 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 therefor
Lalita A. Ranga vs. Ajay Champalal Ranga
Mona Aresh Goel vs. Aresh Satya Goel
SupremeToday
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, 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.