Daily Archives: July 14, 2016

No maintenance to educated employed wife till court conducts detailed inquiry, records evidence, ascertains income : Madras HC

A well qualified wife, a doctor who is supposedly running  clinic and has staff etc, claims and wins maintenance decree at lower court. Husband appeals to Madras HC. At the HC wife claims that she has joined a Masters course, is without income and she has to maintain the kid. However The Honourable HC Orders “….7.Regarding the maintenance to the respondent/wife, the learned Judge has to conduct a detailed enquiry after recording evidence from the revision petitioner and the respondent as to whether the respondent gets sufficient income to maintain herself and also find out the revision petitioner’s gross income and decide the issue. Therefore, the maintenance granted to the wife, i.e., a sum of Rs.10,000/- per months from the date of maintenance application till date is set aside…”
============================

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 29/08/2011

CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN

C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1115 of 2008

and

M.P(MD)No.1 of 2008

Dr.Prabhu Srinivasan  ..Petitioner

Vs

Ramaprabha ..Respondent

PRAYER

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 14.03.2008 in I.A.No.8 of 2007 in H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

!For Petitioner … Mr.K.Balasundaram

^For Respondent … Mr.D.Rajagopal
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

:ORDER

The revision petitioner has filed the above revision to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 14.03.2008 in I.A.No.8 of 2007 in H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The revision petitioner/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2004 against his wife for divorce for dissolving the marriage which was solemnized on 06.02.2003 between the petitioner and respondent on the ground of cruelty. The said case has been filed before the Principal Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam. The respondent/wife had filed counter statement and resisted the divorce petition. while so, the respondent/wife has filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.8 of 2007 in H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2004 on 05.06.2007 for interim maintenance of a sum of Rs.70,000/- per month to her child and herself. Besides the respondent/wife has also prayed for payment of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for contesting the case and a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for dress, medical expenses and for festival expenses.

3.The revision petitioner/husband has filed counter statement and opposed the interim maintenance case on various grounds. The learned Judge, after hearing the arguments of the counsels on both the sides and on perusing the averments of both the parties, allowed the interlocutory application in part, stating that the revision petitioner/husband has pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife, and another Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to his son. The learned Judge had also ordered for payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- by the husband as litigation charges to his wife.

4.Aggrieved by the said decree and decretal order, the above revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent is also a qualified doctor and she is economically well of. As such, the interim maintenance order is not sustainable. The learned Judge, erroneously had ordered for payment of a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards maintenance to the respondent and the child. This amount is on the higher side since the revision petitioner does not have sufficient income from his profession to comply with the order. The revision petitioner is not even getting a sum of Rs.5000/- per month through his profession. The respondent is running a clinic and had employed assistant doctors, nurses, and technicians including driver. It clearly proved that the respondent gets sufficient income through her profession. Therefore, the respondent/wife is not entitled to receive any maintenance from the revision petitioner.

5.The learned counsel for the respondent/wife argued that the respondent has joined in a master degree course and as such she is a student, and not an earning doctor. Further, the child is with the respondent and she has to provide good education, dress and rich food to the child. Therefore, the revision petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to the respondent and the child. The learned Judge, after considering the contentions laid down on both sides had passed the interim maintenance, to the respondent. This order is a well considered one. As per order of the learned Judge, the revision petitioner is liable to pay about Rs.10,00,000/- i.e., from the date of filing the interim maintenance application till date, but the revision petitioner has wantonly and deliberately evading payment of maintenance, even though he gets sufficient income. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

6.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the learned Judge, this court is of the considered opinion that the learned Judge had ordered for a sum of Rs.10,000/- to be paid as maintenance to the child, which is fair and justifiable.

7.Regarding the maintenance to the respondent/wife, the learned Judge has to conduct a detailed enquiry after recording evidence from the revision petitioner and the respondent as to whether the respondent gets sufficient income to maintain herself and also find out the revision petitioner’s gross income and decide the issue. Therefore, the maintenance granted to the wife, i.e., a sum of Rs.10,000/- per months from the date of maintenance application till date is set aside. Regarding the litigation charges, a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal, which is on the higher side. Hence, this court reduces the amount granted towards litigation charges to Rs.25,000/- as it is found to be fair and justifiable. This court further directs the revision petitioner to pay the monthly maintenance a sum of Rs.10,000/- to his son, as per learned Judge order, from 05.06.2007 till date; along with litigation charge of a sum of Rs.25,000/- out of this total amount, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order by way of demand draft drawn in favour of the respondent/wife. The balance of maintenance payable to the child shall be cleared within a period of seven months from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly ordered.

8.In the result, the above revision petition is allowed in part with the above observations. Consequently, the order and decretal order passed in I.A.No.8 of 2007 in H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam is modified. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.

skn

To

The Additional Sub-Judge,

 

source

Indiakanoon.org

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


“Expecting wife to earn is against Hindu philosophy”: Madras HC! Rs 10000 pm levied on poor postman with aged mother & widowed sister !

Madurai

Expecting wife to earn is against Hindu philosophy: Madras High Court bench

It is against Hindu philosophy for a man professing that religion to expect his wife to get employed, earn sufficient money and maintain herself without depending upon his income, the Madras High Court Bench here has said.

Justice P. Devadass made the observation while dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by a postman against an order passed by the Family Court here on November 5 directing him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000 each to his estranged wife and two-year-old daughter.

The revision petitioner had challenged the order to pay maintenance on several grounds and one of them was that his wife was employed in a shop here and was earning sufficient money to maintain herself.

Refusing to accept his contention, the judge said: “There is no evidence to establish that she is employed. Even otherwise, it is immaterial because under Hindu Law a husband should maintain his wife. A Hindu husband will not say that his wife must go to work and get herself maintained.

“Nowhere a Hindu husband while marrying a lady will say: I will marry you provided you must work and earn and feed yourself. It would be against Hindu philosophy.”

Pointing out that the petitioner was a Central government employee earning about Rs. 23,000 a month, the judge said government employees could not be heard to raise the plea of earning less since their salaries keep rising year after year apart from revision of Dearness Allowance once in six months.

“Now in Madurai, Rs. 5,000 per month will not be a fabulous amount for a woman and a child to meet their expenses towards a roof, food, clothing and additional nourishment for the child. It would be sufficient only for a hand-to-mouth existence. This amount is what is required [as] bare minimum…” he added. On the petitioner’s contention that he had an aged mother, widowed sister and her children also to take care of, the judge said that it could not be a justification to pay less to the wife and child when the petitioner’s brother was sharing the burden of maintaining their mother.

 

source

http://m.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/expecting-wife-to-earn-is-against-hindu-philosophy/article8846938.ece