The court affirmed the husband's duty to maintain his wife during divorce proceedings, emphasizing the prima facie existence of the marriage despite challenges to its validity.

C O M M O N O R D E R

These two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the order passed by learned IV Additional Principal Family Court at Chennai in I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2023 in O.P.No.859 of 2022 dated 30.08.2024.

2. O.P.No.859 of 2022 was presented by the Civil Revision Petitioner seeking for declaration that the marriage that had taken place between him and the Respondent on 05.03.2010 in "Jesus with us" Church Office No.8/15, Negatha Koil Lane, Royapuram, Chennai is null and void.

3. The Petitioner pleads that the Respondent, who was a Hindu, had married him on 05.03.2010 at the aforesaid church. Thereafter, the Petitioner and the Respondent were residing together till the divorce petition was filed.

4. The ground on which the marriage is sought to be dissolved is that the respondent/wife had previously been married, which came to be dissolved only on 03.10.2012 and therefore, on the date on which the she got married, to the civil revision petitioner, her status is that of a married individual. He pleads that as per the Indian Christian Marriage Act, a person whose previous marriage is in subsistence, is incompetent to enter into a matrimony.

5. Notice was ordered in the petition and the wife also filed a counter. Pending the proceedings, she took out applications in I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2023 seeking for interim maintenance as well as for payment of litigation expenses. The wife pleaded that she was aged 14 years, when she was given in marriage to one Murugan on 22.01.2000. Within 3 years, by the age of 17, she is said to have begotten three daughters. She pleaded that she was working as a servant maid in the house of the civil revision petitioner. Relationship developed between the parties and it led to a marriage proposal made by the civil revision petitioner to the respondent.

6. The respondent, is an uneducated person, who is an 8th standard drop out. She pleaded that they lived as husband and wife post their wedding in 2010. This relationship had continued till he filed the divorce petition. She pleaded that in and around 2020, she developed cancer in the uterus and the said organ had to be removed. The fact that she was not able to give conjugal bliss to the civil revision petitioner led to filing of the Divorce Petition by the civil revision petitioner. She further pointed out that O.P.No.859 of 2022 itself is at the stage of recording evidence i.e, for cross-examination of P.W.1. She also pointed out that the age difference between the civil revision petitioner and herself was 27 years. On the date of marriage, the Civil Revision Petitioner was 50 years old and the respondent was a young girl of 23 years. She pleaded that the husband had arranged lawyers for filing of O.P.No.2978 of 2012 seeking divorce from her first husband viz., Murugan, in which, a decree was passed on 03.10.2012. She added that when she was unaware of the divorce proceedings, it was the civil revision petitioner who had hastened the process in order to obtain Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) status through the marriage with the respondent. She further points out that the husband had initiated the proceedings stating to her that their marriage will hold water only, if there is a divorce through the court of law for the previous marriage which was contracted when she was 14 years old. She further added that the Civil Revision Petitioner is a Director of King Chain Pvt Ltd., in Tambaram and is drawing a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- per month. Pleading that she is not able to maintain herself as well as for taking care of her medical expenses, she sought for an amount of interim maintenance as stated above.

7. This application was resisted by the husband stating that though they were married in the year 2010, as decree of divorce was granted only in the year 2012, he is not liable to pay any amount to the respondent/wife. He pleaded that his property is under the occupation of the respondent/wife and therefore, she need not be paid any maintenance. The wife also,