Husband’s Divorce NOT decreed aftr 18yrs, but maintenance arrears ordered ! Why ppl still get married ?main

Many times I wonder why ppl get married !! Today, a marriage is NOT between a woman and man… It’s between the Man and courts, the man and the police!

Here is a case where the Husband’s Divorce NOT decreed after 18yrs, YES 18 years. The husband’s counsel says that the case is NOT decreed after repeated orders by the Hon High court. So one wonders as to what powers the high court has, if the family court which is within the same compound does NOT listen to the Honourable HC

However maintenance arrears ordered and husband is asked to pay the same within ONE WEEK from date of receipt of order !! Tell me why Why ppl still get married ?

Excerpts

“…..The petitioner (husband) filed an Original Petition in O.P.No.69 of 1997 for divorce on the ground of cruelty way back in the year 1997. It is brought to the notice of this Court that even after nearly 18 years, the said Original Petition has not yet been disposed of. …..”

“………respondent/wife filed an application u/Section 24 of HMA, claiming interim maintenance. Family Court awarded Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent (WIFE) herein…………”

Now the Honourable HC orders : “….6.In those circumstances, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,19,000/- to the respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order ….” and also orders speedy closure of the divorce case !!

*********************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04.06.2015

CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.4254 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

U.R.Anandakrishnan                        …   Petitioner

v.

A.S.Ramaa                    … Respondent

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decreetal order dated 30.08.2014 made in EP.2 of 2013 in IA1757 of 2000 in OP 69 of 1997 on the file of the III Additional Family Court at Chennai directing payment of arrears of maintenance of Rs.2,13,000/- on or before 06.10.2014.

For Petitioner           : Mr.V.Raghavachari

For Respondent      : Mr.J.Saravanavel

ORDER

Challenging the order passed in E.P.No.2 of 2013 in I.A.No.1757 of 2000 in O.P.No.69 of 1997 on the file of the learned III Additional Family Court at Chennai, the petitioner who is the husband of the respondent has filed the above said Civil Revision Petition.

2.The petitioner filed an Original Petition in O.P.No.69 of 1997 for divorce on the ground of cruelty way back in the year 1997. It is brought to the notice of this Court that even after nearly 18 years, the said Original Petition has not yet been disposed of. In the Original Petition, the respondent/wife filed an application in I.A.No.1757 of 2000 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming interim maintenance. The Family Court awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent herein. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

3.Since, the petitioner failed to pay the interim maintenance amount as awarded by the Family Court, the respondent/wife filed an Execution petition in E.P.No.2 of 2013 claiming arrears of maintenance to the tune of Rs.2,28,000/- for the period from September 2006 till December 2012.

4.When the matter is taken up for hearing today, Mr.J.Saravanavel, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the period of arrears was wrongly mentioned in the order as September 2006 to December 2012 and in fact, the period is from June 2009 to December 2012. If the arrears of maintenance is calculated for the said period i.e., 43 months the arrears comes to Rs.1,29,000/-. Further, the learned counsel submitted that till June 2015, the total arrears comes to Rs.2,19,000/- .

5.Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the repeated orders passed by this Court to dispose of the Original Petition in O.P.No.69 of 1997, the Family Court has not disposed of the same. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the oral evidence on either side was closed by the Family Court and the matter is posted for arguments.

6.In those circumstances, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,19,000/- to the respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and since, the Original Petition in O.P.No.69 of 1997 is pending for long period in spite of the repeated orders passed by this Court to dispose of the same, I direct the III Additional Family Court, Chennai to dispose of the original petition in O.P.No.69 of 1997 without any further delay, in any event, not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report disposal of the original petition to the Registry of this Court. With these observations, the order passed in E.P.No.2 of 2013 in I.A.No.1757 of 2000 in O.P.No.69 of 1997 is modified and the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

04.06.2015

Index          :  No

Internet       : Yes

jbm

To

The III Additional Family Court,
Chennai.

M.DURAISWAMY, J

jbm

CRP (PD) No.4254 of 2014

04.06.2015

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
*******************************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s