Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

R. SUBBIAH, J The appellant has filed CMA No. 2571 of 2015 aggrieved by the order dated 22.09.2015 passed by the Family Court, Erode allowing the I.A. No. 39 of 2015 in F.C.O.P. No. 166 of 2010 filed by the wife/respondent herein under Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act directing the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month towards interim maintenance 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.

2. CMA No. 1961 of 2017 is filed by the appellant questioning the correctness of the order dated 20.09.2016 passed in FCOP No. 40 of 2009 whereby the Family Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by the appellant herein under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.

3. CMA No. 1962 of 2017 is filed by the appellant as against the order dated 20.09.2016 passed in FCOP No. 166 of 2010 whereby the Family Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent under Section 13 (1) (1-a) (1-b) of The Hindu Marriage Act for dissolving the marriage solemnised between the appellant and the respondent on 07.02.1982.

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.

23. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials placed on record. Let us first deal with CMA No. 2971 of 2015 which arise out of an order passed by the Family Court, Salem in I.A. No. 39 of 2015 in FCOP No. 166 of 2010 filed under Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act.

24. Before dealing with the rival contentions urged in CMA No. 2571 of 2017, we find from the records that when CMA No. 2571 of 2015 filed by the appellant was listed for hearing, this Court, by an order dated 03.02.2016 made in MP No. 1 of 2015 in CMA No. 2571 of 2015, directed the appellant herein to deposit a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the credit of IA No. 39 of 2015 in FCOP No. 166 of 2010 on the file of Family Court, Salem. It is reported that the appellant has also deposited the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and the same was also encashed by the respondent herein. The same is hereby recorded.