CRP(PD).No.1611 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.04.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA CRP.(PD).No.1611 of 2025 and CMP.No. 9321 of 2025 M.Karthikeyan ... Petitioner Vs. L.Pavithra @ L.Subha ... Respondent Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 18.03.2025 made in IA.No.1 of 2022 in OP.No.4520/2016 on the file of the Hon'ble III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai and to allow the above Revision Petition. For Petitioner : M/s.S.Nagarajan For Respondent : M/s.R.Veeramani O R D E R Challenging the order passed by the III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai in IA.No.1 of 2022 in OP.No.4520 of 2016, the respondent/wife is the petitioner before this Court. 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(PD).No.1611 of 2025 2. O.P.No.4520 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner/husband on the file of the above said Court seeking dissolution of marriage between himself and the respondent on the ground of cruelty. 3.Pending HMOP, the respondent/wife had filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming a maintenance of Rs.30,000/- to her and Rs.20,000/- to the child. 4.It is the contention of the respondent/wife that she has been treated with cruelty in her matrimonial home. The respondent/wife would submit that when she had conceived a daughter and was into her 8th month, on 19.11.2016, the petitioner/husband and his mother had pushed her out of her matrimonial home. The respondent/wife had immediately contacted the helpline 1091 and the police warned both petitioner/husband and his mother. However, they had not allowed the respondent/wife to enter the house and confined her in a car shed. The next day with the help of her friends the respondent/wife went to her parent's house. The respondent/wife would submit that after she had delivered a daughter, the petitioner/husband had failed to conduct any traditional ceremonies and had also refused to see the child. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(PD).No.1611 of 2025 5.It is the contention of the respondent/wife that the petitioner/husband is earning a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. However, he is not maintaining her and her child. Therefore, the respondent/wife has come forward with the maintenance application. 6.The petitioner/husband had filed a counter in the application by contending that it is the respondent/wife who had not behaved as a dutiful daughter in law and had thrown aside the love and affection showed by him. She was deeply influenced by her mother and elder sister and this caused a lot of friction at home. The petitioner/husband would go on to state that after the petitioner left the matrimonial home there was no contact between the petitioner and the respondent. He would also submit that the respondent/wife is living an immoral life. The petitioner/husband would submit that though the application for divorce has been filed in the year 2015, the impugned application has been filed only in the year 2022 and there is no explanation for the delay. The petitioner/husband would submit that the respondent/wife is easy going and has lot of male friends with whom she would chat in the night and therefore, he would submit that she is not entitled for maintenance. The petitioner/husband would go on to state that he doubts the paternity of the child and therefore he would submit that he is not liable to pay maintenance to the child. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(PD).No.1611 of 2025 7. The Trial Court after hearing the parties and perusing the records had proceeded to award a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards interim maintenance to the child alone. Since the respondent/wife is employed, the maintenance was denied to her. Challenging the same the petitioner is before this Court. 8. Heard the counsel on either side and perused the records. 9. The only basis on which the petitioner/husband would seek to deny the maintenance to the child is that the child was not born to him. This is a rather cruel statement and amounts to bastardising the child. The petitioner's sinister motive to deny the paternity is clearly evident from the fact that the application for divorce was signed on 08.12.2015 but was not processed and numbered till 2016. The respondent/wife was physically assaulted on 19.11.2016 when she was 8 months pregnant and thereafter she had left to her parent's home. On 09.01.2017 the baby girl was born. The contention of the petitioner/husband that the respondent/wife had left the matrimonial home on 26.11.2015 and the child was born on 09.01.2017, therefore the child is not the child of the petitioner prima facie appears to be a false statement. Be that as it may. This is an issue which has to be decided after trial. Therefore, the order directing the interim maintenance to the daughter is very much in order and I see no reason to 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(PD).No.1611 of 2025 interfere with the same. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 21.04.2025 (shr) Index : Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No To 1.The III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(PD).No.1611 of 2025 P.T. ASHA . J., (shr) CRP.(PD).No.1611 of 2025 and CMP.No. 9321 of 2025 21.04.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis