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

MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. Subbiah and A.D. Jagadish Chandira, JJ.
K. Gurusamy —Appellant
versus
G. Malliga —Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1409 of 2017 in I.A. No.1061 of 2016 in FCOP No.258 of 2016
Decided on 6.7.2017

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. P. Srinivas, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. N. Manokaran, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 18 (2) (f) Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 has no application for considering claim of husband or wife for interim maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act.

Headnote:Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 24—Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956—Section 18 (2)(f)—Interim maintenance—Grant of—Section 18 (2) (f) Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 has no application for considering claim of husband or wife for interim maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act—In an application filed either by husband or wife under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, financial status of parties and his or her capability to maintain himself or herself during pendency of matrimonial proceedings alone is required to be considered—At this stage, what is required to be decided is resourcefulness or otherwise of applicant to maintain himself or herself during pendency of matrimonial proceedings—For this purpose, Courts are not required to take note of conversion of either husband or wife to any other religion—Impugned order affirmed. (Paras 5, 6 and 7)

       Result: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

R. Subbiah, J.—This appeal is filed by the appellant/husband, questioning the correctness of the order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the Family Court, Erode in I.A. No. 1061 of 2016 in FCOP No. 258 of 2016, which was filed by the wife/respondent herein.

2. The appellant herein has filed FCOP No. 258 of 2016 before the Family Court, Erode praying to grant a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage solemnised between him and the respondent on 11.06.1986. Pending the Original Petition, the wife/respondent has filed I.A. No. 1061 of 2016 in FCOP No. 258 of 2016 under Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act praying to direct the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards interim maintenance and another sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses. The application filed by the wife/ respondent was contested by the husband/appellant. The Family Court, after hearing both sides and taking into consideration the evidence available on record, allowed the application filed by the wife/respondent herein and directed the husband/appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000/- towards monthly maintenance and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. Aggrieved by the said order, the husband/ appellant is before this Court with this appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that earlier, the respondent herein has filed M.C. No. 42 of 2005 under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode. In the said proceedings, while adducing evidence, the respondent has categorically admitted that she has converted herself from Hinduism to Christianity six years back. The respondent has further stated that she is not willing to live with the appellant herein. Taking note of such evidence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode dismissed M.C. No. 42 of 2005 filed by the respondent herein on 25.07.2008. While so, the present petition filed by the respondent under Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act is not maintenable. The Family Court, Erode, without taking into account the evidence recorded in M.C. No. 42 of 2005 has erroneously directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month as interim maintenance and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the respondent. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant invited the attention of this Court to Section 18 (2) of The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, wherein it is stated that a Hindu Wife is entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance and as per Section 18 (2) (f) of the said Act, she is entitled to be maintained by her husband during her life time, if he (husband) is ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion. In this case, the wife/ respondent herein has converted herself from Hinduism to Christianity and living separately therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Family Court, Erode, without considering the above legal position, has erroneously awarded interim maintenance to the respondent and therefore, he prayed for setting aside the order passed by the court below.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the wife/respondent herein, by placing reliance on the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of (Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain) reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 1640 would contend that Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act does not use the word ‘maintenance’ rather, the word ‘support’ alone is used therein and a harmonial interpretation to the provisions contained in Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act would unfold the intention of the legislature to provide financial support to the husband or wife as the case may be during the pendency of the matrimonial proceedings. The conversion of the husband or wife as the case may be to any other religion cannot be decided by the Court in an application filed under Section 24 of The Hindu Marr








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