Madras High Court
R.Muthumanikandan : Revision vs M.Rajalakshmi
Author: T.Krishnavalli
Bench: T.Krishnavalli
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date of Reservation 17.02.2021
Date of Order 08.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
CRP(NPD)(MD)No.1096 of 2018
and
CMP(MD)No.4745 of 2018
R.Muthumanikandan : Revision Petitioner/Respondent/
Petitioner
Vs.
1.M.Rajalakshmi
2.Minor Thenmozhi
(Rep. by her mother and natural
guardian) : Respondents/Petitioners/
Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal
order, dated 20.04.2018 passed in I.A No.346 of 2011 in HMOP No.
190 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Thirumangalam.
For Petitioner : M/s.B.Asha
For Respondents : Mr.R.Gowri Shankar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 20.04.2018 passed in I.A No.346 of 2011 in HMOP No.190 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Thirumangalam.
2.The petitioner is the husband and the 1st respondent is the wife of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is their child. The marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was solemnized on 14.09.2005 at Siva Vaiyapuri Nadar Kamatchiammal Thirumana Mahal in Thirumangalam. At the time of marriage, the parents of the 1st respondent put 20 sovereigns of gold jewels and gave Rs.15,000/- in cash as gift. Out of the wedlock, the 2nd respondent was born to them, on 23.08.2006. Subsequently, due to matrimonial tiff, the petitioner/husband filed HMOP No.190 of 2011 for divorce on the file of the Sub Court, Thirumangalam. The 1 st respondent/wife also filed HMOP No.300 of 2011 as against the petitioner/husband for restitution of conjugal rights. When the case was pending trial, she filed MC No.26 of 2015 before the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam, seeking maintenance for her and minor daughter. The learned Judicial Magistrate, passed an order, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3 dated 01.12.2016 directing the petitioner/husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to minor daughter alone and dismissed the petition regarding the maintenance to the wife. Thereafter, both the HMOP Nos.190 and 300 of 2011 were dismissed for default for non appearance of the parties. On 12.03.2018, HMOP No.190 of 2011 was restored to file with a condition to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the 1st respondent/wife. On 20.04.2018, the learned Sub Judge, Thirumangalam, passed an order of maintenance, in I.A No. 346 of 2011 in MC No.26 of 2015, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the wife and Rs.1,000/- to the minor daughter from the date of petition, dated 18.12.2011 and also directed the petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost to the wife. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/husband is before this court.
3.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
4.The main contention raised on the side of the petitioner/husband is that without any sufficient reason, his wife deserted and hence, he is not liable to pay maintenance. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband submitted https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4 that as per Section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act, only spouse is entitled to maintenance, but in this case, the trial court ordered maintenance for the child also and already his wife filed this interim alimony petition during the year of 2011, but suppressing the same, she filed MC No.26 of 2015 before the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam and the learned Magistrate ordered maintenance to the child and in respect of her, the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petition and it was challenged by his wife before the Principal District Court, Madurai, for rejecting maintenance to her. But the learned Principal District Judge allowed the Crl.R.P No.1 of 2018 and maintenance was ordered for his wife, but the Sub Judge also ordered maintenance for his wife and child and legal expenses without any sufficient reasons and prays that the Civil Revision Petition has to be allowed.
5.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that only due to the cruelty by her husband, she deserted her husband and she had no sufficient income to maintain her and her child and her husband was working as CDS in Sugar Cane Mill at Ariyalur and her husband had sufficient means to maintain her and her child and prays that the Civil Revision Petition has to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5
6.The revision petitioner and the 1st respondent are husband and wife. The husband filed HMOP No.190 of 2011 for divorce and in the above petition, the wife filed petition for interim alimony in I.A No.346 of 2011. Pending the above petition, the 1st respondent/wife also filed MC No.26 of 2015 before the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam, seeking maintenance for her and her child. But, the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petition regarding the wife and ordered maintenance for her child. Against the said order, the 1st respondent/wife preferred Crl.R.P No.1 of 2018 before the Principal District Judge, Madurai and in that Criminal Revision Petition, maintenance was ordered for the wife also. Before the Magistrate Court, the 1st respondent/wife has not disclosed the pendency of the interim alimony in IA No.346 of 2011 in HMOP No.190 of 2011.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband submitted that he is taking steps to challenge the order passed in Crl.R.P No.1 of 2018 by the Principal District Judge, Madurai. Further, the order passed in the criminal proceedings will not bind the civil proceedings in HMOP No.190 of 2011. As per Section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act, the spouse alone is entitled for interim https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6 alimony. But in this case, interim alimony has been ordered for both the wife and the child. Hence, maintenance ordered for the child in the impugned order is not sustainable.
8.The petitioner/husband stated that without any sufficient cause his wife deserted him. At first, the husband only filed HMOP No.190 of 2011 for divorce and then only, the wife filed HMOP No. 300 of 2011 for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the HMOP Nos. 190 of 2011 and 300 of 2011 were dismissed for default. But the petitioner/husband took steps to restore HMOP No.190 of 2011. The wife stated that without sufficient cause, her husband deserted her. But the husband stated that without any sufficient cause, his wife deserted him. The husband has not taken any steps for re- union with the wife. But he filed petition for divorce. Further, during his cross examination in IA No.346 of 2011, he stated that though his wife is ready for reunion, he is not willing for re-union. Hence, it shows that he is not willing for re-union. Hence, the petitioner/husband failed to prove that the wife left the matrimonial home without any sufficient cause and further the wife alone has filed HMOP No.300 of 2011 for restitution of conjugal rights. But, it was dismissed for default.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 7
9.The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/wife submitted that the 1st respondent/wife is taking steps to restore the petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights, which was dismissed for default. Hence, the argument put forth on the side of the petitioner/husband stating that without any sufficient cause, his wife deserted him is not at all acceptable.
10.At this stage, it is necessary to extract section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act, which would run thus:-
“24.Maintenance pendente lite and
expenses of proceedings-Where in any
proceeding under this Act it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8 the income of the respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable.”
11.In this case, already it was decided that the petitioner/husband failed to prove that her wife left the matrimonial home without sufficient reasons and it is held that the wife is entitled to maintenance. But as per Section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act, child is not entitled to get maintenance in the interim alimony petition in a petition for interim alimony pending main HMOP. Therefore, the learned Sub Court has rightly directed the petitioner/husband to pay maintenance to the child as per the order in MC No.25 of 2016. Hence, the amount awarded by the trial court towards maintenance for the wife at Rs.3,000/- per month is correct.
12.In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
08.06.2021 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 9 Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/ litigant concerned.
To,
1.The Sub Judge, Thirumangalam.
2.The Record Keeper, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 10 T.KRISHNAVALLI.J., er CRP (NPD)(MD)No.1096 of 2018 08.06.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/