Miss Lucy
← All judgments

T.S.Ganeshbabu vs V.Yamini

Madras High Court17 December 2024J.Nisha Banu

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

C.M.A.No.3203 of 2019

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