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
Result: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed.
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
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.