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

2025 Supreme(Mad) 4330

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
T. Mohanraj - Petitioner 
Versus 
Janani @ Krishna – Respondent
C.R.P.(PD) No.5326 of 2024 & C.M.P. No.29606 of 2024
Decided On : 28-01-2025


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A. Arun.
For the Respondent: Ms. Janani @ Krishna (Party-in-Person).

The court affirmed the husband's duty to maintain his wife during divorce proceedings, ensuring she enjoys the same standard of living as during marriage, regardless of her employment status.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1)(ia) and 26 - Maintenance - The petitioner sought dissolution of marriage and interim maintenance. The Family Court granted maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month based on the wife's lack of independent income. The husband challenged this order, claiming the wife was employed and earning a substantial income. The Court upheld the maintenance order, emphasizing the husband's duty to maintain the wife during divorce proceedings and the standard of living to which she was accustomed. (Paras 14, 15, 19)

(B) Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 26 - The Court recognized the husband's obligation to provide for the wife’s necessities, even in the context of maintenance claims. The Court noted that the wife’s employment status would affect maintenance obligations. (Paras 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner and respondent were married in 2018, separated in 2022, and disputes led to a divorce petition. The wife sought maintenance, claiming no income, while the husband asserted she was employed and earning significantly. (Paras 2-5)

Findings of Court:
The Court determined that the wife had no independent income prior to her recent employment and that the husband must maintain her at a standard reflective of their marriage. (Paras 15, 19)

Issues: The main issues were the wife's entitlement to maintenance and the husband's claims regarding her employment status. (Paras 4, 11)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the husband has a duty to maintain his wife as per their standard of living during marriage, irrespective of her current employment status, unless proven otherwise. (Paras 14, 15)

Result: Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed; maintenance modified to Rs.12,500/- per month from December 2024.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The husband is duty-bound to maintain the wife during divorce proceedings and ensure she enjoys a standard of living as in marriage. (!) (!) - The wife's employment status is considered in determining maintenance responsibility and amount, with adjustments if she gains employment after initially lacking independent income. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The maintenance order was modified from Rs.20,000 per month to Rs.12,500 per month from December 2024, reflecting the wife's new employment. (!) - The court acknowledged the DV Act provisions and their relevance to maintenance and housing needs. (!) - Arrears payment timeline and litigation expense allowance were addressed, with arrears extended and litigation costs fixed at Rs.15,000. (!) (!) - The petition was partly allowed; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed; no costs awarded. (!)

What is the maintenance obligation of the husband to the wife during divorce proceedings?

What is the effect of the wife's employment status on the maintenance obligation and the standard of living to be maintained?

What are the court’s findings and orders regarding the quantum and duration of maintenance for the wife in this case?


ORDER :

(V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.)

This civil revision petition challenges the order passed by the learned Family Court at Vellore in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in FCOP No.219 of 2024.

2. There is no dispute in the relationship between the parties. The petitioner married the respondent on 30.08.2018 at Vellore. There are no issues from the wedlock. Due to disputes and differences, the parties separated. Thereafter, a petition was filed under 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in December 2022 seeking for dissolution of the marriage. The petition was numbered as FCOP No.313 of 2022. When the matter was taken up on 21.07.2023, there was no representation on the side of the respondent/wife. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as infructuous, on the request of the husband. Thereafter, he initiated a proceeding for divorce in FCOP No.219 of 2023. He has invoked Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 .

3. I need not go into merits of the allegations made in the petition for disposal of this revision.

4. On service of summons, the respondent / wife filed a petition seeking interim maintenance. She pleaded that the husband is earning a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month in 'Concentrix', a software company in Bangalore. She pleaded that she has no independent income in order to sustain herself and to meet her essential expenses. She pleaded that she requires a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month towards maintenance and Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses. Notice was ordered in this application and a counter was received from the husband.

5. The husband pleaded that he is employed in the company, which the wife asserts, but is being paid only Rs.67,000/- per month. He added that he has expenses towards rent, food and travel, housing loan-EMI and medical expenses. He urged that the wife is working in 'Accion Labs' and is earning a monthly salary of Rs.1,50,000/-. He pleaded that she has purchased a property worth about Rs.70,00,000/- and is paying a monthly EMI Rs.68,000/-. To substantiate this plea, he enclosed an online copy of CIBIL Report of the wife and sought for dismissal of the petition.

6. A new strategy has been adopted in this litigation. The husband took out an application seeking interim maintenance. He wants, his wife to pay him a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month as monthly maintenance and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses. Both the parties filed their affidavit of assets and liabilities as directed by the Supreme Court Rajnesh v. Neha , 2021 2 SCC 324 .

7. The learned trial Judge came to a conclusion that the wife has no independent income and, therefore, ordered the petition as prayed for. He granted three months time to pay the arrears. Consequently, he dismissed the petition filed by the husband seeking maintenance. The husband has challenged the order of the trial Court granting maintenance to the wife.

8. When the matter is came up for admission 09.01.2025, Mr.Arun Anbumani asserted that the wife is working in the 'Infinite Computer Solutions India Ltd.' in Bangalore and hence, she is not entitled to any amount towards maintenance. Taking into consideration this plea, I issued notice.

9. Mr.Arun served notice on the respondent. On 23.01.2025, the respondent Ms.Janani @ Krishna is present in Court. She wanted time to get ready with the matter. Hence, I posted the matter today.

10. I heard Mr.Arun Anbumani for the civil revision petitioner and Ms.Janani @ Krishna, Party-in-Person. Permission was granted to the Party- in-Person to make her submissions in the matter.

11. Mr.Arun Anbumani drew my attention to a CIBIL report which stands in the name of Krishna B. Meenakshi Sundaram and points out that a loan for a sum of Rs.68 lakhs has been availed by the wife and she is paying an EMI of Rs.64,479/-. He asserted that the wife is working in 'Infinite Computer Solutions India Private Limited' and as she is employed, she is not entitled to any amount towards maintenance. He further stated that between the period of January, 2020 and Ap

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top