IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.11.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

C.M.A.No.3016 of 2021

and C.M.P. No.17205 of 2021

N.Ravi

... Appellant

vs

K.Bhuvaneswari @ Mahalakshmi

... Respondent

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of

the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the fair and decretal

order dated 24.09.2020 in I.A. No.3174 of 2017 in O.P. No.407

of 2015 passed by the II Additional Family Court, Chennai.

For Appellant

:

Mr.S.Ruban Prabu

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of this Court was delivered by T.RAJA, J.]

This appeal has been directed against the impugned

interim maintenance directing the appellant husband to pay a

sum of Rs.9,000/- to the respondent wife from the date of the

petition, namely, 13.11.2017.

2.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant husband

submitted that when the appellant has filed an Original

Petition in O.P. No.407 of 2014 under Section 13(1)(i-b) of

the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 seeking a decree for dissolution

of marriage on the ground of desertion, during the pendency of

the petition, the respondent wife has moved an application in

I.A. No.3174 of 2017 in O.P. No.407 of 2014 claiming a huge

sum of Rs.20,000/- per month towards the interim maintenance

from the date of petition till the disposal of the divorce

petition and also litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- on the

ground that the appellant has been running 2 fancy shops and

newspaper shop at Mahabalipuram and earning Rs.45,000/- per

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

month. But the fact remains would speak clearly that the

appellant is drawing only a consolidated pay of Rs.7,500/-,

for which, the appellant has also filed a salary slip issued

by the Golden Shopping Centre clearly showing that he has been

getting a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month. Ignoring this fact, the

Family Court has directed the appellant to pay a sum of

Rs.9,000/- per month, which is untenable and unjustifiable.

Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.

3.We are unable to find any justification on the part of

the appellant for the double stand taken by him in the counter

affidavit filed by him before the Family Court and in the

salary certificate dated 20.11.2015, which are extracted as

under:

'8.... in fact this respondent is doing small

business by engaging in small petty shop at

Mahabalipuram through which he has been deriving

income for the livelyhood of this respondent'

Whereas the Salary Certificate says as follows:

'Presently he is drawing salary of consolidated pay

Rs.7,500/- (Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) per

month.'

4.A careful perusal of the averments made by the

appellant in his counter affidavit shows that he is doing

small business by engaging in small petty shop at

Mahabalipuram through which he has been eking out his

livelihood. Curiously, he has not even stated as to how much

money he is getting from the above shop. Secondly, the income

certificate issued by Golden Shopping Centre dated 20.11.2015

shows that he has been drawing consolidated pay of Rs.7,500/-.

The same are not only doubtful, but, also un-acceptable for

the simple reason that when the appellant comes to the Court

stating that he is working as an Employee, he could not have

taken a double stand, namely, one in the counter affidavit

stating that he has been doing small business by running small

petty shop at Mahabalipuram and in the Salary Certificate

filed by him stating that he is drawing salary of consolidated

pay of Rs.7,500/- (Seven thousand five hundred only) per

month.

5.When we posed a question to the counsel for the

appellant as to the possibility of filing of an affidavit

before this Court stating that the appellant is not doing any

business by running petty shop, he is not able to accep