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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2290

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
K. Kumaresan - Petitioner 
Versus 
K. Aparna and Ors. – Respondents
C.R.P.(MD) No.127 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD) No.564 of 2024
Decided On : 04-12-2024 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. V. Illanchezian
For the Respondents: Mr. B. Saravanan, Senior Counsel for Mr. T. Pradeep.

A wife is entitled to maintenance from her husband under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act despite his claims of unemployment, emphasizing the legal obligation to support her and children adequately.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Sections 18(1), 18(2), 20, and 23 - Civil Revision Petition regarding interim maintenance - Plaintiff entitled to claim maintenance from husband during her lifetime; the husband obligated to support children as per sections cited and must ensure reasonable needs are met - Court confirmed trial court's order for maintenance of Rs. 14,21,555/- and ongoing monthly support of Rs. 30,000/- plus school fees. (Paras 12, 15, 16)

(B) Interim Maintenance - The husband cannot evade financial responsibilities towards wife and children despite claims of unemployment, as he was previously earning significantly and must seek employment - The amount ordered is not exorbitant based on the financial and medical needs highlighted by the plaintiffs. (Paras 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
The marriage took place on 10.11.2008, with two children born to the couple. Plaintiffs sought interim maintenance due to serious allegations of misconduct from the husband, including neglect and abandonment, with the first plaintiff having incurred substantial medical expenses for a child post-surgery. (Paras 2, 4)

Findings of Court:
The amounts stated as required for the plaintiffs’ maintenance were finding justification in the context of the husband's earnings and financial responsibilities. The prior order for support was maintained, highlighting the inability of the first plaintiff to financially support herself or the children independently. (Paras 11, 15, 16)

Issues: Whether the trial court's order justifying the claimed amount for interim maintenance is adequate and warranted under the circumstances presented. (Paras 10, 11)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the entitlements of the wife and children to maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, considering the husband's income and his obligation under law to support them adequately. The husband's claim of unemployment does not exempt him from providing maintenance. (Paras 12, 15, 16)

Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed; order on interim maintenance confirmed.

Table of Content
1. background of marriage and family dynamics. (Para 2 , 4 , 10)
2. plaintiffs' requests for maintenance. (Para 3 , 5)
3. context of marriage and family obligations. (Para 6)
4. legal entitlements under hindu adoption and maintenance act. (Para 11 , 12)
5. criteria for determining maintenance. (Para 13 , 14)
6. court's decision to uphold maintenance order. (Para 15 , 16)
7. dismissal of civil revision petition with directives. (Para 17 , 18)

ORDER :

K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 16.10.2023 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.431 of 2021, on the file of the I Additional District Court (PCR), Tiruchirappalli.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondents are the plaintiffs and the revision petitioner is the defendant in the above suit in O.S.No. 431 of 2021; that the first respondent/first plaintiff is the wife of the revision petitioner/defendant and the second and third plaintiffs/second and third respondents are their children [hereinafter, the parties are referred to as plaintiffs and the defendant]; and the case of the plaintiffs in the suit is as follows:-

i. i. The marriage was solemnized between the first plaintiff and the defendant on 10.11.2008 at Trichy, as per Hindu rites and customs.

ii. At the time of the marriage, both the first plaintiff/wife and the defendant/husband were employed.

iii.After the marriage, they resided in Chennai.

iv. Out of their wedlock, two female children were born to them.

v. The first plaintiff/wife was subjected to harassment by the defendant/husband and his family members.

vi. The defendant/husband had illicit intimacy with another woman, and when the first plaintiff/wife questioned him about it, he pacified her, assuring that he would not engage in such behavior again.

vii. Thereafter, the first plaintiff/wife and the defendant/husband went to USA for their employment.

viii. However, the defendant's illicit relationship with the said woman continued. When the first plaintiff/wife confronted him again, the defendant/husband quarreled with her.

ix. While they were in USA, the second child was born. By birth, the child was diagnosed with heart disease and was medically advised by doctors in USA to undergo surgery.

x. Due to the quarrel between the first plaintiff/wife and the defendant/husband, the first plaintiff/wife was compelled to return to India with the children.

xi. The surgery was performed in 2019, incurring medical expenses amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-. The defendant/husband failed to pay the said amount, and the entire sum was paid by the first plaintiff/wife, who borrowed the money from her sister, which was later repaid.

xii. After the child's surgery, the defendant/husband returned to USA for work, while the plaintiffs remained in Chennai.

xiii. When the defendant/husband returned to India during the Covid-19 period, his behavior worsened, and he developed illicit relationships with other women. The defendant/husband failed to take care of the plaintiffs.

xiv. As a result, the relationship between the first plaintiff/wife and the defendant/husband became strained.

xv. The plaintiffs began living separately in Trichy from May 2021.

xvi. The defendant/husband failed to meet the expenses for the education and medical needs of the children.

xvii. Since the relationship between the first plaintiff/wife and the defendant/husband had irretrievably broken down, the first plaintiff/wife was compelled to file a divorce petition before the Sub Court, Kulithalai in H.M.O.P. No. 66 of 2021. She also filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in D.V.C. No. 7 of 2021 before the Judicial Magistrate Court No. II, Kulithalai.

xviii. Apprehending action in the above proceedings, the defendant/husband started to send a sum of Rs. 30,000/-per month to the plaintiffs from July 2021.

xix. In order to harass the first plaintiff/wife, the defendant/husband filed a petition in H.M.O.P. No. 79 of 20

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