Further, the fact that the respondent has received substantial monies for the last three financial years is also not in dispute. The object of Section 24 is only for providing interim maintenance to the wife to enable her to get sufficient income to live a comfortable lifestyle. I do not see that the respondent is not possessed of such sufficient income already, warranting further monies from the petitioner by way of interim maintenance. {Para 16}
18.In Rajnesh's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no straight jacket formula for fixing maintenance and the Court has to waive the status of parties, reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children, their education qualifications, any independent source of income accruing to the wife and whether such income would be sufficient to enable the wife to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in the matrimonial home, whether the wife was employed before and after marriage, etc.
19.Even applying the ratio laid down in Rajnesh's case, I do not find that the respondent requires any further amounts by way of interim maintenance to lead a comfortable lifestyle. In view of the aforesaid discussions regarding her holding of immovable properties as well as the substantial income by way of substantial dividends of the Company.
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
CRP.No.2590 of 2025
& CMP.No.14720 of 2025
Dr.C.Amarnath Vs Dr.J.Remabarathi
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
Dated : 22.08.2025.
The husband, who approached the Court seeking dissolution of the
marriage in H.M.O.P.No.3564 of 2019 before the IV Additional Principal
Family Court, Chennai, aggrieved by the common order dated 27.01.2023 in
I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2021, is before this Court by way of the above revision.
2.The respondent/wife filed I.A.No.1 of 2021, seeking interim
maintenance for herself and her son, A.Anirudh under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act and I.A.No.2 of 2021 was filed for a direction to the
petitioner/husband to pay the school fees, including NEET coaching fee in
respect of the Master.A.Anirudh, son of the petitioner and the respondent.
Admittedly, insofar as I.A.No.2 of 2021, the petitioner/husband has
subsequently come forward to meet the educational expenses and the order in
I.A.No.2 of 2021 has not been challenged. The present revision is only
challenging the order in I.A.No.1 of 2021, in and by which, the Family Court
has directed payment of interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month to the
respondent/wife as well as the minor A.Anirudh, from the date of filing of
interlocutory applications seeking maintenance, till disposal of the HMOP.
3.I have heard Mr.T.Gowthaman, learned Senior Counsel for
Mrs.S.Karpagapriya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.J.James, learned
counsel for the respondent.
4.Mr.T.Gowthaman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner/husband would submit that the respondent is financially not only self
sufficient, but also affluent and there is no necessity for the petitioner to pay
any interim maintenance to his wife. However, insofar as the maintenance to his
son, the petitioner does not challenge the award of maintenance and the learned
Senior Counsel states that it is being paid without any default. According to the
learned Senior Counsel, the challenge is only in respect of the award of interim
maintenance to the wife. He would further submit that the Family Court has
passed a mechanical order, without appreciating the pleadings in the
maintenance application and the evidence adduced by the parties. He would
further state that the very object of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is
only to ensure that the respondent is able to sustain herself for a basic and
decent living, including meeting of the litigation expenses that have been
fastened upon her by the husband.
5.The learned Senior Counsel would also rely on the dividends received
by the respondent as a Director of M/s.Roentgen Scan World Private Limited
and also her conduct in approaching the National Company Law Tribunal
(NCLT), seeking for a restraint order to not release dividends to her. In this
connection, the learned Senior Counsel would state that the conduct of the
respondent/wife is clearly malafide and only in order to make the claim for
maintenance against the petitioner, the respondent has not only suppressed the
huge income received by her as dividends from the Company, but also her
approaching the NCLT and seeking an order for not releasing the amounts
payable to her, which amounts to a self restraint order only in order to entitle
her to claim maintenance from the petitioner/husband.
6.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would also state that the
respondent has acquired valuable properties worth several crores and therefore,
the respondent cannot claim to be starving and there was absolutely no
necessity to call upon the petitioner to pay interim maintenance, when the
petitioner has been able to demonstrate that the respondent is very affluent and
self sufficient. He would also point fingers at the conduct of the respondent in
settling the property standing in her favour, on being put on notice by the
petitioner, that she has acquired valuable properties in her name, pending the
proceedings. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore seek for the interim
maintenance award passed against the petitioner/husband to be set aside.
7.Per contra, Mr.J.James, learned counsel for the respondent/wife would
state that the dividends that have been received by the respondent have all gone
into meeting the educational expenses of the son of the petitioner and the
respondent and therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner do not deserve any merit. The learned counsel for the
respondent would further state that there is no regular income from the Scan
Centre accruing to the respondent and even in the assets and liabilities filed by
the respondent/wife, she has disclosed her ownership of 32 cents of land in
Thiruporur and there is no concealment of any material fact. She would further
state her income tax returns also do not disclose any income from the Scan
Centre between 2020 and 2022.
8.Insofar as the settlement of valuable property at No.50, Khanabagh
Street, the learned counsel for the respondent would state that the property
originally belonged to her mother and though it was settled in her name, the
respondent has subsequently settled it in her father's name, since the father is
the ostensible owner of the property, having purchased the same in the mother's
name and therefore, would contend that the settlement of the said property is of
no relevance to the facts of the present case. The learned counsel for the
respondent would also state that the petitioner/husband has made a false
statement, as if he has not invested any monies in the Scan Centre and in this
regard, the learned counsel for the respondent would state that the respondent
has produced documentary evidence to substantiate the petitioner's investment
in the said Company, by way of bank statement, which clearly evidences the
fact that the petitioner has invested a sum of Rs.48 lakhs in April 2019, which
was during the pendency of the divorce proceedings initiated by him, apart
from further investment of Rs.20 lakhs in Scan Point, a different entity
altogether.
9.The learned counsel for the respondent would therefore state that when
the petitioner is receiving a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- as regular salary from Scan
World and also monthly income of Rs.1,62,602/- as salary from the
Government, there is absolutely no infirmity in the order passed by the Family
Court directing payment of Rs.30,000/- to the respondent. The learned counsel
for the respondent would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision.
10.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. I
have also gone through the decisions that have been relied on by the learned
counsel for the respondent in Shailja and Another Vs. Kobbanna, reported in
(2018) 12 SCC 199 and Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another, reported in (2021) 2
SCC 324, in support of his contention.
11.The Family Court, as against the claim of the interim maintenance
sought for by the respondent/wife, has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of
Rs.30,000/- each to the wife and the son. The petitioner has not challenged the
award of maintenance to his son. In fact, the order in I.A.No.2 of 2021,
directing the petitioner to meet NEET coaching fees to the tune of
approximately Rs.2.77 lakhs is also not challenged and in fact, it is brought to
may notice that the same has already been paid.
12.It is also the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has no
objection for meeting the reasonable expenses that are required to meet the
expenses of his son and only in such circumstances, the order in I.A.No.2 of
2021 was not challenged and award of maintenance to the tune of Rs.30,000/-
to the son is also not being challenged. It is only the award of maintenance to
the tune of Rs.30,000/- which is under challenge.
13.Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act reads thus:
“Section 24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.
Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the
court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be,
has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and
the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the
application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to
pay the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly
during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the
petitioners own income and the income of the respondent, it
may seem to the court to be reasonable.
[Provided that the application for the payment of the
expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the
proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty
days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the
husband, as the case may be]”
14.It is therefore to be seen whether the petitioner is liable to pay interim
maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to the respondent.
The object of awarding interim maintenance is only to ensure that the wife has
sufficient income to enable her to maintain herself and the said sustenance is
not mere survival, but should be on the same lines of a comfortable lifestyle
that she would have had in the matrimonial home. In the present case, it is not
in dispute that the respondent is a Director of a Company by name,
M/s.Roentgen Scan World Private Limited. The respondent is also a Doctor,
who has been receiving regular dividends as early as February 2016. In fact, the
statement dated 30.06.2025 issued by the Scan World evidences the fact that for
the financial years 2021-2022, the respondent has been paid a net amount of
Rs.15,18,750/-, for the financial year 2022-23 a sum of Rs.16,20,000/- and for
the financial year 2023 – 2024, a sum of Rs.16,20,000/-. All these payments are
by way of RTGS transactions. In fact, on instructions, the learned counsel for
the respondent also confirms that these amounts have been received by the
respondent. However, it is the contention of the respondent that all those
amounts have gone into for meeting the educational expenses of the son of the
petitioner and the respondent and therefore, the respondent/wife is entitled to
seek interim maintenance and her income by way of dividends cannot come in
the way of her seeking interim maintenance.
15.It is however contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner that without even consulting the petitioner, the son has been admitted
into an institution where the educational fees and expenses are sky high and for
the arbitrary decisions of the respondent, the petitioner cannot be mulcted with
liability. It is also seen that the respondent has properties standing in her name
and even one of the properties that has been settled in her favour by her mother
has been re-transferred to her father, pending the proceedings. The explanation
offered by the respondent is that the father was the ostensible owner having
brought to the property in the name of the mother and therefore, the respondent
has settled the property in favour her father, does not appear to be bonafide. If
really, the father was the ostensible owner having put in the entire sale
consideration, while purchasing the property in the name of his wife, nothing
prevented the mother to have straight away settled the property in favour of her
husband, namely the father of the respondent. However, pending the
proceedings, the settlement executed by the respondent in favour of her father
clearly appears to be only in order to get over the objections of the petitioner
that the respondent is affluent and owns valuable immovable properties. Even
otherwise, the petitioner is having landed property in Thiruporur in the
outskirts of city of Chennai where also the property prices have risen
considerably.
16.Further, the fact that the respondent has received substantial monies for the last three financial years is also not in dispute. The object of Section 24 is only for providing interim maintenance to the wife to enable her to get sufficient income to live a comfortable lifestyle. I do not see that the respondent is not possessed of such sufficient income already, warranting further monies from the petitioner by way of interim maintenance. In all fairness, the petitioner has stated that he is willing to meet the educational expenses of his son and has also complied with the order in I.A.No.2 of 2021. Even with regard to the award of Rs.30,000/- maintenance to the son, the petitioner has accepted the said order and has not even challenged the same. In the light of the above, I am not able to sustain the order of the Family Court awarding interim maintenance to the respondent/wife, which is wholly unnecessary in the light of the substantial income that has accrued to the respondent by way of dividends in Scan World and the fact that the respondent also owns valuable immovable properties.
17.In Shailja's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earing is not sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court.
18.In Rajnesh's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no straight jacket formula for fixing maintenance and the Court has to waive the status of parties, reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children, their education qualifications, any independent source of income accruing to the wife and whether such income would be sufficient to enable the wife to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in the matrimonial home, whether the wife was employed before and after marriage, etc.
19.Even applying the ratio laid down in Rajnesh's case, I do not find that the respondent requires any further amounts by way of interim maintenance to lead a comfortable lifestyle. In view of the aforesaid discussions regarding her holding of immovable properties as well as the substantial income by way of substantial dividends of the Company. The Family Court has already awarded maintenance, considering all the expenses that have been set out by the respondent and fixed the maintenance amount of Rs.30,000/- in support of the minor son and the same has not been challenged by the wife, seeking enhancement as well. The petitioner has also accepted the said order and has been paying a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the son, apart from also meeting the amount of Rs.2,77,000/-. The Family Court, after taking into account the assets
and liabilities filed by both the parties, has only focused its attention on the
requirement of the son, A.Anirudh and without any reasons or even discussion
with regard to the specific averments regarding the ownership of immovable
properties and income accruing from the Company by way of dividends, has
straight away proceeded to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the wife as well. In
view of the above, I am inclined to interfere with the order passed by the
Family Court.
20.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed and the order of
the Family Court dated 27.01.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 is set aside insofar as
the respondent/wife alone. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected Civil
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Dated: 22.08.2025
No comments:
Post a Comment