Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The appellant herein has filed HMOP No. 4063 of 2018 under Section 13 (1) (i-a) and (1) (i-b) of The Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent herein before the Family Court, Chennai for dissolution of the marriage solemnised between them on 20.01.2016. As per the averments in the Original Petition, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 20.01.2016 as per Hindu rites and customs at Vadapalani Andavar Temple, Vadapalani, Chennai and it was also registered on 28.01.2016 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Kodambakkam. The marriage was an arranged marriage having been solemnised at the instance of the family members of both sides. At the time of marriage, the respondent was employed in an information technology firm and earning Rs.34,500/- per month. The request of the respondent to pay the entire salary amount after marriage to her mother was also generously accepted by the appellant. After the marriage, the http://www.judis.nic.in  cma 3681 of 2019 appellant and respondent stayed in the parents house of the appellant at Thiruvarur cordially. As the appellant was employed in Qatar, after two months of marriage, he left India to Qatar. During 2017, the respondent accompanied the appellant to Qatar where they lived happily for five months. As the respondent became pregnant, she returned to Chennai and stayed with her mother and sister. During such stay in Chennai, the respondent never visited his parents hosue at Thiruvarur and continued to stay in her parents house. The respondent also demanded the appellant to resign his employment and come back to India, however, the appellant refused to quit his employment by citing his financial commitment including a home loan availed with Indian Bank to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs. On 29.05.2018, the respondent gave birth to a male child and the appellant came to see the child, but the appellant was not treated well by the respondent. According to the appellant, when he used the laptop of the respondent to book his return flight ticket to Qatar, he was shocked to see a video of the respondent dancing with her office staff in an inebriated condition in a tour arranged by her employer. When enquired by the appellant, the respondent shouted at the appellant and made it as if the appellant is suspecting her character. At the height of the quarrel, the respondent had shown the exit door to the appellant. Thereafter, the respondent abruptly stopped talking to the appellant over phone. On http://www.judis.nic.in  cma 3681 of 2019 18.07.2018, the appellant sent a legal notice calling upon the respondent to come and live with him within 15 days. The respondent, on receipt of the notice, called upon the appellant for a compromise. However, the respondent and her family members have lodged a false complaint against the appellant and his parents as if they have harassed the respondent demanding dowry. The appellant again sent another notice on 01.09.2018 calling upon the respondent to come and live with him. Inspite of receipt of the notice dated 01.09.2018, the respondent did not sent any reply notice. Therefore, the appellant has filed the Original Petition before the Family Court seeking dissolution of the marriage.

4. On notice, the respondent has filed I.A. No. 6676 of 2018 under Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance and litigation expenses. According to the respondent, at the time of marriage, the appellant was not employed and she alone was employed in an information technology company. After marriage, the appellant and his parents did not permit the respondent to go to job and hence she was forced to resign the job. It is also stated that it was the respondent who had settled the home loan availed by the appellant with her earnings. After the loan amount was cleared, the appellant got employed in Qatar. The matrimonial life was happy and http://www.judis.nic.in  cma 3681 of 2019 blissful for some time, however, it was ruined due to the ill advice of the parents of the appellant. Soon after the marriage, when the respondent stayed in the parents house of the appellant, she was ill treated and the mother of the appellant want the appellant to listen to her dictates and the respondent was not permitted to say anything. It is also stated that now the respondent is not employed and she resigned her employment. The mother of the respondent is a house wife and there was no source of income for her to maintain herself and the minor male child. On the other hand, the appellant is employed in Qatar as a Project Engineer and earning Rs.2,50,000/- per month. Therefore, she prayed for appropriate direction to direct the appellant to pay Rs.50,000/- as maintenance to her and another sum of Rs.30,000/- to the minor male child per month as interim maintenance besides Rs.2,00,000/- as litigation expenses.

5. The application for interim maintenance was resisted by the appellant by filing a counter. According to the appellant, he is working as an Electrical Planning Engineer in ELT at Qatar on contract basis. According to the appellant, it is a temporary job and not a permanent job. On the other hand, the respondent is continuously working as a Software Engineer in Accenture Software Solutions, Chennai from 2013. Further, on 30.11.2019, the respondent was promoted to the post of Test Engineering Analyst and http://www.judis.nic.in  cma 3681 of 2019 earning a sum of Rs.6 lakhs per annum. While so, it cannot be said that the respondent has no income to maintain herself. The respondent is resourceful enough to maintain herself and the minor child. The appellant would further contend that due to the matrimonial discord and the complaint given by the respondent to All Women Police Station, he was constrained to come to Chennai very frequently by availing leave, with the result, he was terminated from his employment on 19.12.2018 itself. After he was terminated from his employment, he came back to India and staying along with his parents at Thiruvarur. It is his contention that he is not employed anywhere and he is jobless. In such circumstances, the petition for interim maintenance filed by the respondent has to be dismissed.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is not gainfully employed anywhere. She is staying with her http://www.judis.nic.in  cma 3681 of 2019 mother and sister and she finds it very difficult to meet her basic needs and that of the minor child. On the other hand, the appellant is employed in Qatar and earning Rs.2,50,000/- per month. To substantiate the same, the respondent has filed Ex.P1, salary slip of the appellant. Even though the appellant contended that the respondent is gainfully employed, he has not substantiated the same by any documentary evidence. The respondent has therefore proved that she is not resourceful enough to maintain herself and the minor child and therefore, the Family Court is right in directing the appellant to pay maintenance to the respondent and the minor child. To buttress this submission, learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Deepak Jain vs. Charu Jain reported in (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 229 and contended that when it is shown that the wife is unable to maintain herself, she has every right to file a petition under Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act to seek for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses from the other spouse, who is qualified and self sufficient to maintain. He also relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Shamina Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan reported in (2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases 705 and contended that it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain his wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable http://www.judis.nic.in  cma 3681 of 2019 of earning. The learned counsel for the respondent therefore submits that the Family Court is wholly justified in coming to the conclusion that the respondent is not resourceful enough to maintain herself and consequently directed the appellant to pay the pendente lite maintenance. Further, the respondent sought for maintenance of Rs.80,000/- to herself and the minor children, but the Family Court has only directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month which cannot be said to be exorbitant. The learned counsel for the respondent therefore prayed for dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the appellant.