Advocates:
['M/S R DHAMODARAN', '', 'S S SAJEEVKESAN', 'R VIJAYAKUMAR', 'M/S L RAMU', '', 'V/R']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.02.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

C.M.A.No.2721 of 2017

and

C.M.P.No.15279 of 2017

V.Saravanan

..Appellant /Respondent/Respondent

.Vs.

Dhanalakshmi @ Gayathri

..Respondent/Petitioner/Petitioner

Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984

against the order dated 20.07.2017 in I.A.No.55 of 2016 in

H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court,

Thiruvallur.

For Appellant

:

Mr.R.Dhamodaran

For Respondent :

No appearance

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. As

there was no representation on behalf of the respondent on the

earlier occasion, we have posted the matter today.

Unfortunately, even today, there is no representation on her

behalf.

2.The respondent filed a petition for restitution of

conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2015. Pending the said

petition, she sought for interim maintenance under Section 24 of

the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court awarded a sum of

Rs.3,000/- per month towards maintenance in her favour.

Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by the

husband.

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

3.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit

that though the amount is meager, the fact remains that the

respondent has suppressed the factum of her employment. An

averment has been made that she was unemployed. The salary which

she receives under Ex.C2 would show that she is receiving much

higher amount than the appellant. She has been employed as a

Senior Bailiff in the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur.

Notwithstanding the same, the Court below awarded Rs.3,000/- per

month towards maintenance. Therefore, the order requires

interference.

4.We find considerable force in the submission of the

learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Firstly, there is a

clear suppression of fact in the affidavit filed by the

respondent before the Court below. In para 3 of the affidavit,

she has stated as follows:

3. I belong to a poor Adi Dravida family and now I

have no substantial means to conduct case and run my

life. But the respondent who married me on 27.06.2013

at Jayam Mahal Thirumana Maligai on my expenses is

working in the State Transport Corporation and he is

earning not less than Rs.40,000/- per month. My main

petition in the HMOP No.36/2015 also kindly"be

considered as a part and parcel of this

affidavit/petition.

5.The aforesaid submission is factually wrong. She has not

disputed Exs.C1 and C2. The Court below has also accepted the

abovesaid documents and nonetheless proceeded to award

Rs.3,000/- per month towards maintenance to be payable by the

appellant. The object of interim maintenance is for the

sustenance of the wife when she is not able to have monthly

income otherwise. The object cannot be defeated at the instance

of a person, who has suppressed the fact of employment which

indicates that she has been receiving more amount than her

husband. For such a suppression, the Court cannot come to the

aid. It is not as if in all cases, the wife is entitled for

interim maintenance notwithstanding the fact that she is in a

better position than her husband. We also note that no relief

can be granted to the person who has approached the Court with

unclean hands.

6.In such view of the matter, we are inclined to interfere

with the order of the Court below. Accordingly, the impugned

order dated 20.07.2017 in I.A.No.55 of 2016 in H.M.O.P.No.36 of

2015 stands set aside and this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands

allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petition is closed.

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

7.Taking into consideration the fact that