T.S.Ganeshbabu vs V.Yamini
- Citation2024 SCC OnLine Mad 10698
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a party obligated by court order to pay maintenance for a child fails to comply with that obligation, an appeal filed by that party will not be entertained unless and until the party demonstrates willingness to pay the arrears of maintenance and fulfill the ongoing maintenance obligation.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :17.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
C.M.A.No.3203 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.18260 of 2019
T.S.Ganeshbabu ... Appellant
Vs.
V.Yamini ... Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against the order and decree in O.P.No.4215 of 2011 dated 17.06.2019 on the file of V Additional Family Court, Chennai. For Appellant : Mrs.V.Srimathi
For Respondent : Mr.R.Sreedhar
JUDGMENT
(The judgment of the Court was delivered by J.Nisha Banu,J.)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the
appellant/husband as against the order and decree dated 17.06.2019 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1/6 C.M.A.No.3203 of 2019
passed in O.P.No.4215 of 2011 by the V Additional Family Court,
Chennai.
2. The said O.P.No.4215 of 2011 was filed by the respondent/wife
for divorce and the decree of divorce was granted by the Family Court on
the ground of cruelty and desertion. Further, the appellant/husband was
directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to the minor daughter
namely, Sahana, from the date of the petition i.e., 24.11.2011.
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 06.12.2024,
learned counsel for the appellant was directed to verify whether the
appellant was willing to pay the maintenance or not, otherwise, the
matter will be dismissed as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reported in (2020) 17 SCC 822 ( Kaushalya v. Mukesh Jain) and
AIR 2021 SC 569 (Rajnesh vs. Neha).
4. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel
for the appellant would state that the appellant has not paid the
maintenance for the child.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife would state
that the child 'Sahana Ganeshbabu', who was born on 13.01.2008, is now
aged 16 years and studying Twelveth Standard at AV Meiyappan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2/6 C.M.A.No.3203 of 2019
Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Chennai. The appellant/husband
has not paid a single penny towards the maintenance of the child and the
arrears of maintenance has been accumulated to Rs.23,55,000/- as on
today. Learned counsel would further state that both the appellant and
the respondent have been living separately from the year 2011 and the
respondent/wife is having the custody of the child and she wants to
obtain Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) certificate to the child 'Sahana
Ganeshbabu'.
6. The aforesaid statement made by the learned counsel for the
respondent/wife is recorded.
7. It is relevant to point out at this juncture the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Kaushalya v. Mukesh Jain,
(2020) 17 SCC 822 wherein it has been held as follows:
"In the event that there is any failure on the part of the respondent to comply with the order for deposit of arrears and month to month installments, it will be open to the appellant to apply before the Family Court to get the defence of the respondent struck off."
8. Further, in the decision reported in AIR 2021 SC 569 (Rajnesh
vs. Neha), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had passed a detailed judgment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3/6 C.M.A.No.3203 of 2019
giving certain Guidelines / Directions on Maintenance to be followed
and in the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been observed
as follows:
The Court concluded that if there was non-payment of interim maintenance, the defence of the respondent is liable to be struck off, and the appeal filed by the appellant-wife can be allowed, without hearing the respondent.
9. In the present case, despite the direction given by the Family
Court to pay the maintenance to the child, the appellant did not pay the
same till date. Therefore, we do not think we can allow the
appellant/husband to prosecute the appeal without paying the
maintenance.
10. In the light of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the
Appeal. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(J.N.B, J.) (R.S.V., J.) 17.12.2024 vsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4/6 C.M.A.No.3203 of 2019
To The V Additional Family Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5/6 C.M.A.No.3203 of 2019
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
vsi
C.M.A.No.3203 of 2019
17.12.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6/6
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free