CRP.3986 / 2018 , 784 and 785/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 14.07.2022

PRONOUNCED ON : 05.12.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

CRP.784 of 2015 and 785 of 2015

CRP.3986 of 2018

and connected miscellaneous petition.

M.B.SamsonKirubakaran

..Petitioner/Respondent/Petitioner

Vs

S.RoselinTrinita

Respondent/Petitioner/Respondent

Prayer CRP.3986 of 2018 : Civil Revision Petition filed praying to strike

off I.A.No.600/2018 in I.D.O.P.No.106/2013 on the file of the learned

Principal Judge, Thiruvallur District.

Prayer in CRP.No.784 of 2015: Civil Revision Petition filed against the

order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur in

I.A.No.1192 of 2013 in I.D.O.P.No.106 of 2013 dated 21.11.2014.

______________

Page No.1 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.3986 / 2018 , 784 and 785/2015

Prayer in CRP.No.785 of 2015:- Civil Revision Petition filed against the

order passed in I.A.No.885 of 2013 in I.D.O.P.No.106 of 2013 dated

21.11.2014.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Dineshkumar

For respondent : Mr.A.Prabakaran

COMMON ORDER

In the above three revision petitions, revision petitioner is the

husband and respondent is the wife. Revision petitioner/husband filed

I.D.O.P.No.106 of 2013 for divorce. In the said IDOP, husband filed

I.A.No.885 of 2013 for interim custody of the female child born to them.

Wife filed I.A.No.1192 of 2013 for interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/-

each to her and her female child and also Rs.1,00,000/- for litigation

expenses.

2. The allegation of the husband is that when his wife was pregnant,

in July 2010, she went to her parents house and has not returned back. It is

alleged that when he visited wife’s place in response to her call on her

______________

Page No.2 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.3986 / 2018 , 784 and 785/2015

birthday, he was abused and not permitted to see his child. Finding that he

lost all hopes of living a peaceful and happy life, he said to have filed

IDOP and sought custody of the female child.

3. On the other hand, denying the allegations of her husband,

wife/respondent filed counter in IDOP stating that on 27.3.2011, on the

pretext of seeing the child, petitioner/husband came to her maternal home

along with his friends and assaulted her father, brother, damaged house

hold things. Further, in the IDOP case, she filed petition to transfer the OP

before this court and the case was transferred and she submits that she

spent a huge amount towards litigation expenses. She claims interim

maintenance to look after the girl child.

4. The learned Judge, after determining the issues before him,

granted visitation right to the husband to see his daughter once in a month.

Further, the learned Judge directed the husband to pay Rs.5000/- as

interim alimony to the wife for maintenance of the girl child from the date

of O.P., till the date of disposal of the O.P.

______________

Page No.3 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.3986 / 2018 , 784 and 785/2015

5. The revision petitioner/husband, being aggrieved by the directions

of the learned Judge, over visitation right and interim alimony filed

CRP.784 and 785 of 2015.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner/husband that respondent/wife is employed and her father is a

heart patient and so they are not in a position to take care of the child,

whereas, the petitioner’s parents are well educated and retired from

Government’s service and they will take care of the child. The petitioner

therefore, assailed the direction of the learned Judge who ordered for

visiting the child once in a month on 1^st Sunday and submitted that father

is the natural guardian and depriving the custody is not correct.

7. As far as direction to the petitioner to pay Rs.5000/- per month for

maintenance of his child is concerned, it