G SIVARAMAN Vs. P MUTHUKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Here is the peculiar case wherein the question arises for consideration is whether the husband, who obtained decree for divorce on the ground of refusal on the part of the wife to live with her husband is liable to pay any maintenance and if so, the period from which his liability to pay maintenance commences.

(2.) The facts, which are relevant for consideration herein are that the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife got married on 10.07.2003 and the wife left the husband on her own and the parties started living separately from 12.02.2004. The husband filed a petition for divorce on 27.11.2004 on the file of Sub-Court, Chingleput on two grounds, namely, desertion and act of cruelty on the part of wife. During pendency of the divorce petition, wife also came forward with M.C.No.41 of 2005 filed on 2.8.2005 petition under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code for monthly maintenance before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore. The wife, on service of notice appeared in the Divorce petition and also filed Transfer C.M.P.No.343 of 2007, seeking transfer of HMOP to different Court, but the transfer CMP was after hearing both sides, dismissed on 29.10.2008. In the meanwhile, M.C.No.41 of 2005, after due contest was ordered on 13.03.2007 thereby directing the petitioner-husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to his wife from the date of petition for maintenance. Subsequently, the divorce petition was also disposed of on 30.03.2009 by granting a decree of divorce in favour of the husband on both grounds.

(3.) Aggrieved against the award of maintenance, the petitioner-husband preferred this Criminal Revision Petition No.694 of 2007 and the same was admitted on 25.04.2007. The petitioner-husband was also granted an interim order of stay on condition to deposit 50% of the maintenance arrears. Accordingly, the petitioner-husband has deposited Rs.48,500/- (Rupees Forty Eight Thousand and Five Hundred only) till August, 2013 towards maintenance arrears. It is not in dispute that no appeal is filed by the wife against the divorce decree. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondent-wife would submit that the decree granted in H.M.O.P. is an exparte decree and the wife has been taking steps to have it set aside on the issue of jurisdiction as well as on merits. Whereas learned counsel for the petitioner-husband would read out the final order made in the divorce petition in support of his contention, that the decree of divorce is granted on merits, that too, after hearing both sides and cannot be construed as an exparte award.