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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 61216

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dr.G.Jayachandran, Mr.Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, JJ
K.Sampath – Appellant
Versus
T.Geetha – Respondent
C.M.A.No.3050 of 2018|O.P.No.2174 of 2012



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.Sivaprakash
For the Respondents: Mr.S.N.Subramani

Permanent alimony can be awarded only to spouses under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, not to children.

Headnote:Permanent alimony in cases of cruelty and desertion is addressed under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Family Court allowed a petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, awarding Rs.10 lakhs as permanent alimony, which was contested in appeal. The main issues revolved around the proofs of cruelty and financial capacity of the respondent, leading to findings affirming the lower court's decision, with the specific adjustment that the alimony awarded to the son required modification. The appeal was partly allowed, confirming the wife's alimony while restoring interim maintenance for the child.

Table of Content
1. marital cruelty and financial obligations are pivotal in divorce proceedings. (Para 3 , 4)
2. failure to counter evidence leads to acceptance of claims in family court. (Para 5 , 6 , 10)
3. arguments over ownership and capacity impact alimony deliberations. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. clarifies limits on awarding alimony to children. (Para 11)
5. appeal results might affirm or modify lower court's decisions based on evidence. (Para 12 , 13)

(By Dr.G.Jayachandran,J.)

O.P.No.2174 of 2012, preferred by the wife/petitioner on the ground of cruelty and desertion, along with an application for permanent alimony, was allowed by IV Additional Family Court at Chennai, vide order, dated 05.03.2018.

2. The Court below dissolved the marriage solemnised on

01.02.1998 and directed the husband/respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs each to wife (petitioner) and deserted son, as permanent alimony. Since there was an order of interim maintenance to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- to wife and Rs.3,000/- to son, the Court below, taking note of the said fact, directed that the amount, already ordered towards interim maintenance, would form part of the permanent alimony. Being aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is filed by the husband.

3. The sum and substance of the case was that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 01.02.1998. A male child was born to them through the wedlock. At the time of marriage, towards Sreedhana, 37 sovereigns of jewels, silver articles, utensils and cash of Rs.2.00 lakhs was given to the husband, as per his demand. It was represented by the family members of the respondent/husband that he was a B.Com. graduate, however, later it was found that he studied only up to 8th standard. After marriage, the petitioner's wife was put to physical and mental cruelty at the hands of the respondent and his parents. There was a demand of more dowry, coupled with physical assault. The petitioner/wife returned back to the matrimonial home after the delivery of the child. She was illtreated and driven out. This had led to lodging a criminal complaint on 24.02.1999. After warning by police, they both were living together. While so, when the father of the petitioner went to Kancheepuram to see his daughter, there was a quarrel between the petitioner's father and the respondent. The petitioner's father was attacked badly. Same was repeated again on 19.05.2000. It forced the petitioner to lodge another complaint to the police. Due to physical assault, she suffered abortion. As she had been driven out of matrimonial home on 13.05.2000, since then, she was living separately. The cruelty method was intolerable. Be that as it may, the husband, alleging desertion, filed O.P.No.14 of 1999 before Sub-Court, Kancheepuram, for dissolution of marriage. The petitioner-wife preferred M.C.No.361 of 2008, claiming maintenance. Both the divorce petition filed by the husband and the maintenance petition filed by the wife got dismissed on 24.06.2010. While so, on the ground of cruelty and desertion, the wife filed O.P.No.2174 of 2012 before IV Additional Family Court, Chennai, stating that the respondent- husband had deserted her and her son since May,2000, causing cruelty. In the divorce petition, permanent alimony of Rs.75.00 lakhs for herself and minor child was also claimed, stating that the husband owned a hotel by name Rolex at Rajaveedhi, Kancheepuram, and was earning monthly income of Rs.75,000/-. That apart, from the family property, he held shares worth more than Rs.2.00 crores.

4. The averments in the divorce petition were denied by the husband, contending that it was incorrect to state that huge dowry was given to him on his demand. There was no suppression of his educational qualification. It was incorrect to say that the petitioner and the respondent were living with the parents of the respondent as a joint family. In fact, soon after the marriage, nuclear family was set up and they were

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top