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) 4785

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J. NISHA BANU, R. SAKTHIVEL, JJ.
T. Gopi - Appellant
Versus
M. Jayasudha @ Bhavani - Respondent
C.M.A. Nos. 3410, 3411 of 2021, C.M.P. No. 19675 of 2021
Decided On : 27-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Meenakshi Sundaram
For the Respondent: Ganapatheeswaran

Non-payment of maintenance can result in dismissal of appeals in family law, adhering to precedents where the defense may be struck off for such failures.

Headnote:(A) Family Law - Maintenance - Court's discretion on divorce and restitution of conjugal rights - The appeal for divorce was dismissed, while the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed. Failure to pay maintenance led to dismissal of the appeal. (Paras 1-7)

(B) Maintenance Orders - Guidelines provided by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha emphasized consequences of non-payment including striking off the respondent's defense. (Para 6)

(C) Procedural Compliance - The court directed the husband to pay maintenance arrears prior to allowing him to argue the case, indicating the court's stance on compliance with court orders for maintenance. (Paras 2, 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
The appellant/husband sought divorce which was denied, while the respondent/wife obtained a favorable ruling for restitution of conjugal rights. The husband failed to pay maintenance despite multiple opportunities.

Findings of Court:
The appeals were dismissed due to non-compliance with maintenance orders, reinforcing the importance of such payments in family law contexts.

Issues: The main issues addressed were the husband's failure to pay maintenance and the consequences of this non-compliance on the appellate process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that non-payment of maintenance justifies dismissal of the appeal, adhering to precedents set by the Supreme Court regarding the impact of such failures on legal proceedings.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. dismissal of divorce appeal and allowance of restitution. (Para 1)
2. court's consideration of maintenance payment in appeal. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. dismissal of appeals for non-payment of maintenance. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT :

J. NISHA BANU, J.

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the appellant/husband against the common judgment and decree dated 15.10.2019 made in O.P.Nos.4727 of 2014 and 2398 of 2015 by the learned V Additional Principal Judge, V Additional Family Court, Chennai, in which the petition in O.P.No.4727 of 2014 filed by the appellant/husband for divorce was dismissed and the petition in O.P.No.2398 of 2015 filed by the respondent/wife for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed.

2. On perusal of the records, it is seen that on 20.11.2024, when the matters were taken up for hearing, this Court directed the appellant/husband to pay the entire arrears of maintenance to the respondent/wife so as to enable him to argue the matters and adjourned the matters to 04.12.2024. Again on 04.12.2024, when the matters were listed, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant and hence, the matters were directed to be listed on 05.12.2024 under the caption "for dismissal".

3. Thereafter, on 05.12.2024, when the matters were listed under the caption "for dismissal" Mr.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the appellant on change of vakalat and at his request, the matters were adjourned to 06.01.2025.

4. Today when the matters are taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing the respondent/wife would state that the appellant/husband has not paid the arrears of maintenance.

5. In spite of giving number of opportunities, the appellant /husband has not paid the arrears of maintenance. It is relevant to point out at this juncture the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Kaushalya Vs. Mukesh Jain , (2020) 17 SCC 822 , wherein it has been held as follows:-

"In the event that there is any failure on the part of the respondent to comply with the order for deposit of arrears and month to month installments, it will be open to the appellant to apply before the Family Court to get the defence of the respondent struck off".

6. Further, in the decision reported in Rajnesh Vs. Neha , AIR 2021 SC 569 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had passed a detailed judgment giving certain Guidelines/Directions on Maintenance to be followed and in the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-

"The Court concluded that if there was non-payment of interim maintenance, the defence of the respondent is liable to be struck off and the appeal filed by the appellant-wife can be allowed, without hearing the respondent".

7. In the light of the above, we are not inclined to allow the appellant/husband to prosecute the appeal without paying the maintenance. Therefore, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed for non-payment of arrears of maintenance. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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