M.Manojkumar v. Dhanalakshmi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 07.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA & C.M.P.No. 2787 of 2025 M.Manojkumar

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.Dhanalakshmi 2.M.Haasini (Minor) 3.M.Melvin Sajiv (Minor)

...Respondents

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order passed in IA.No.3 of 2024 in HMOP.No.583 of 2023 dated 21.12.2024 passed by the learned VI Additional Family Court, Chennai.

1/7

For Petitioner :

Mr. D.Umashankar

O R D E R

Challenging the interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- awarded to his wife and children the petitioner is before this Court.

2. The petitioner had filed HMOP.No.583 of 2023, seeking dissolution of marriage between himself and the 1st respondent on the file of the VI Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai. The 1st respondent / wife had filed the above IA stating that she is now taking care of her two minor children and that she had to leave matrimonial home on account of the cruelty meted on her by the petitioner.

3. The respondent / wife would submit that the petitioner / husband is a man of means earning an annual income of over Rs.50,00,00,000/-. He is doing business in pulses and earning considerable sums of money. For the last three years the respondent / 2/7

wife has spent more than Rs.20,00,000/- towards the children's education, food, medical expenses by taking loan from her friends and family. The respondent would submit that she is unemployed. Therefore, the respondent has come forward with the petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

4. The petitioner would counter the petition by contending that after the GST his business had undergone a dip. He would also submit that the respondent is periodically changing the School of the children and they are not attending the School regularly. He would contend that the 1st respondent had voluntarily left the matrimonial home. Further, he had sustained a loss and therefore it would not be possible for him to pay the maintenance. However, he is ready to pay school fees and purchase groceries for the children.

5. The learned VI Additional Family Judge, Chennai, on perusing affidavit of assets and liabilities as also the bank pass book of the petitioner and respondent observed that the petitioner is a proprietor of 3/7

a trading company, M/s.Madhankumar Trading Company, which is engaged in the business of pulses and was earning Rs.4,81,630/- per annum. He had also stated that he is willing to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month for the children. The petitioner had not produced the bank statement to show his earning.

6. The learned VI Additional Family Judge, Chennai, after taking into account the over all requirements directed a payment of Rs.30,000/- to the respondents.

7. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner simply reiterated the statement made before the Trial Court that he would, in all, pay a sum of Rs.5000/-. Admittedly the petitioner is doing a business in pulses and it is an admitted fact that the said business is 4/7

doing considerably well. The petitioner has deliberately kept away his bank statement from the scrutiny of the Court.

10. In these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned VI Additional Family Judge, Chennai, who has taken into consideration the needs of the minor school going children as well as the petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

07.03.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No kan 5/7

To VI Additional Family Judge, Chennai.

6/7

P.T. ASHA, J, kan 07.03.2025 7/7