A.Mathiyanban v. T.Preethi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA CRP.(PD).No.343 of 2025 and CMP.No.2137 of 2025 A.Mathiyaban ... Petitioner Vs.
T.Preethi ... Respondent Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed in IA.No.3 of 2023 in HMOP.No.193 of 2022 dated 25.04.2023 by the learned Family Court, Krishnagiri.
For Petitioner : M/s.S.S.Karthikeyan
O R D E R
Challenging the order passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Krishnagiri in and by which the learned Judge had directed the petitioner/husband to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent/wife, the petitioner/husband is before this Court.
1/5
2. The respondent/wife had filed HMOP.No.193 of 2022 on the file of the Family Court, Krishnagiri for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. In the said petition, she had taken out an application for interim monthly maintenance of Rs.3,60,000/- per annum i.e. Rs.30,000/- per month for herself and her minor son to meet their day to day expenses.
3. The respondent/wife would contend that her husband, the petitioner herein is running a successful business in the name and style of 'Mathi Indane Gramin Vitrak' and is earning not less than a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month and therefore commensurate with his status and the need for meeting her and her minor son's expenses she has come forward with a maintenance petition in question.
4. A counter has been filed by the petitioner/husband refuting the contention of the respondent/wife and contending that his ATM card is with the respondent/wife from where she has been drawing money to meet her expenses as also the expenses of the son and therefore the present petition is without any legal basis. However, he 2/5
has not in so many words denied that he is running a business and earning a considerable amount of money.
5. The learned Family Court, Judge, Krishnagiri after considering the arguments and perusing the records had awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month for the respondent/wife and her son till the disposal of the HMOP. Challenging, the same, the petitioner/husband is before this Court.
6. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
7. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Krishnagiri would clearly indicate that application of mind on the part of the learned Judge. The learned Judge has taken into consideration the actual needs of the respondent/wife and her son and as against the claim of Rs.30,000/- per month has only ordered a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month i.e., Rs.5,000/- each for the mother and the son as maintenance. I see no reason to interfere with the said order particularly when the petitioner/husband has not categorically denied 3/5
running a business and earning over a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month.
8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 06.02.2025 (shr) Index : Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No To 1.The Family Court, Krishnagiri.
4/5
P.T. ASHA . J., (shr) CRP.(PD).No.343 of 2025 and CMP.No.2137 of 2025 06.02.2025 5/5