Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Pending FCOP No. 166 of 2010, the respondent has filed I.A. No. 39 of 2015 in F.C.O.P. No. 166 of 2010 under Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act seeking to direct the appellant to pay interim maintenance. According to the respondent, on and from 16.08.2007, she is residing separately as the appellant had driven her away from the matrimonial home. It was further stated that 12.08.2010, the respondent was admitted in Apollo Super Speciality Hospital, Chennai and it was diagnosed that the respondent is suffering from Breast cancer. The respondent also underwent a surgery (Right modified Radicial Mastectomy) for such ailment besides she is taking continued chemotherapy for 6 sittings. The Doctors have also advised her to be in constant medication for the rest of her life. It was stated that the expenses for the surgery, including various medical examination, travelling expenses, hospital expenses etc., have exceeded Rs.3 lakhs and the respondent was constrained to take hand loans from her relatives and friends to meet such medical expenses. It was also stated that the respondent is not employed or she has any source of income. She is dependent on others and she has no wherewithal even to take care of her own medical needs. On the other hand, the appellant is engaged in business of sale of silver articles and he is resourceful enough to pay maintenance to the respondent. The obligation of the appellant to provide maintenance to the respondent is not only legal but also moral. Apart from medical expenses, the respondent needs atleast Rs.25,000/- to meet her day to day expenses relating to food, clothing and shelter. The respondent is also required to undergo medical check up once in three months at Chennai for which she has to spend atleast a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, the respondent has filed the above said I.A. No. 39 of 2015 in FCOP No. 166 of 2010 and prayed to direct the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month towards interim maintenance for food, medical expenses and clothing, Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses and Rs.3 lakhs for medical expenses.

13. Before the Family Court, in I.A. No. 39 of 2015 in FCOP No. 166 of 2010, there was no oral evidence let in either by the respondent or the appellant. However, the respondent/wife marked Exs. P1 to P3. Ex.P1 is the xerox copy of the discharge summary issued to the respondent by the Apollo Hospital, Chennai. Ex.P2 and P3 are the xerox copy of the bills issued by Apollo Hospital, Chennai for payments made. On the side of the appellant, there was no documentary evidence marked.

14. Before the Family Court, in I.A. No. 39 of 2015, it was contended that the appellant is a silver merchant and earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month through such business besides that he is getting Rs.10,000/- as rent by leasing his properties. However, in order to disprove such averments made by the respondent, the appellant has neither let in any oral evidence nor any documentary evidence. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that the appellant herein is resourceful enough to pay the maintenance amount claimed by the respondent. The Family Court also found from the documentary evidence, Exs. P1 to P3 filed by the respondent that the respondent is suffering from breast cancer and she is required to frequently undergo chemotherapy and other allied medical examinations. The Family Court had also taken into account that the respondent had spent a substantial amount towards her treatment by borrowing loan from outsiders as she has no independent source of income. Having regard to the above circumstances, the Family Court, Salem passed an order dated 22.09.2015 directing the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month towards interim maintenance per month from the date of the petition, another sum of Rs.25,000/- towards one time litigation expenses besides a sum of Rs.3 lakhs for the medical expenses for the wife/respondent herein. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.09.2015, the appellant has come up with CMA No. 2571 of 2015.

20. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that before the Family Court, in I.A. No. 39 of 2015 in F.C.O.P. No. 166 of 2010 filed by the wife/respondent herein has filed documentary evidence  Exs. P1 to P3 to show that she is suffering from breast cancer, the costs incurred by her for such treatment as also the necessity to continue the treatment for her ailment in future. The documentary evidence produced by the respondent in I.A. No. 39 of 2015 would disclose that the respondent had undergone mastectomy surgery and she is continuously undergoing the procedure called Chemotherapy in Apollo hospital, Chennai. Further, from the date of separation namely 16.08.2007, the appellant failed and neglected to maintain the respondent and the children and he did not provide any financial support. The respondent is also not employed and she has no source for her livelihood. The Family Court, taking note of the ailment suffered by the respondent, the period of treatment, the expenses incurred by her for such treatment and the necessity to continue such treatment in future, had rightly allowed the application filed by the respondent granting interim maintenance. The Family Court has also considered the admission of the appellant that he is carrying on silver business and having business transaction with the jewellers at Vijayawada. Above all, the appellant is having immovable properties at (i) No.43, Devangapuram Extension, Salem (ii) a house at Swarnapuri Salem and (iii) two other houses, which he had inherited from his mother which were rented out to tenants and receiving rent. The appellant also during his cross-examination admitted that he owns the immovable properties as aforesaid and is in receipt of rental income. Therefore, having regard to the said facts, especially when the respondent is suffering from breast cancer and taking treatment for the same at Apollo Hospital, Chennai, the learned counsel for the respondent prayed this Court to dismiss C.M.A. No. 2571 of 2015 by confirming the order passed by the Family Court, Chennai.

27. In order to sustain the averments in I.A. No. 39 of 2015, the respondent has filed Exs. P1 to P3 to show that she is suffering from breast cancer and that she had taken treatment at Apollo Superspeciality Hospital, Chennai. The respondent also produced xerox copy of the bills issued to her by Apollo Hospital, Chennai. The Family Court, Salem, on considering the documentary evidence under Exs. P1 to P3 concluded that the respondent is suffering from breast cancer for which she has incurred substantial amount towards medical expenses by raising loan from her well wishers and relatives. The Family Court specifically recorded a finding that the respondent has clearly stated that the appellant is a silver merchant and earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month and also receiving Rs.10,000/- as rental income and such averment was not disproved by the appellant by filing any contra evidence. It is not the contention of the appellant that the respondent is employed and earning substantially so as to maintain herself or she is capable of incurring medical expenditure for her ailment. Further, in the proof affidavit filed by the appellant on 06.05.2014, he has admitted that he is doing silver business. Further, the appellant also admitted in his cross-examination on 06.05.2014 that he owns three properties and therefore, it can be reasonably presumed that the appellant is in receipt of rental income from the properties owned by him. Thus, the respondent has proved that the appellant is engaged in silver business and is also receiving rental income from the properties owned by him. The Family Court also, while granting pendente lite maintenance has considered Exs. P1 to P3 filed by the respondent herein to show that she is suffering from breast cancer and taking treatment. When a specific question was put to the appellant during cross-examination as to whether he is in a position to maintain the respondent and the minor children, he had only stated that he will be in a position to maintain them provided the respondent joins him in the matrimonial home. Therefore, the appellant had imposed pre-conditions to maintain the respondent and the children which would show that the appellant is having the wherewithal and he is resourceful enough to maintain the respondent. Even though the appellant claimed that he had sustained loss in the business, had underwent surgeries in his eyes and is suffering without any income, he has not filed any documentary evidence to prove the same. When a question was posed to the appellant as to whether he will be in a position to file the Income Tax Returns to show that he is not running the business, he has stated that he can file the documents relating to Income Tax Returns, however, he failed to produce any such document before the Family Court. In this context, useful reference can be made to the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Amarjit Kaur Vs. Harbhajan Singh reported in [2003 (10) SCC 228] wherein it was held that once it is found that the spouse who seeks maintenance did not have any independent income for her support, the Court has to grant maintenance pendente lite. In such circumstances, we hold that the appellant is in a position to maintain the respondent. The obligation of the appellant to maintain the respondent is not only moral but also legal. On the other hand, the respondent is not in a position to maintain herself as she has no independent source of income of her own to maintain herself besides she has to take continued treatment for her ailment as referred to above. Further, under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the relevant consideration for granting maintenance, pendente lite is that the spouse should not have sufficient income for her/his support and once the Court reaches its conclusion in this regard, it has to grant maintenance and the only discretion left with the Court is with regard to the quantum of maintenance. In the present case, we find from the records that the appellant is in a position to pay maintenance to the respondent and in our opinion, the quantum of compensation awarded by the trial Court is also reasonable befitting the financial status of the appellant. Hence, we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the Court below in granting interim maintenance to the respondent and it calls for no interference by this Court.