In the case of Loyola Selva Kumar v Sharon Nisha In this instance, the wife applied for support for herself and her minor daughter under Section 125 CrPC in response to the Family Court judgement giving maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- to the wife and ordering the husband to pay the total arrears of maintenance amount within one month. The husband has submitted a counter-declaration questioning the validity of the marriage itself as well as the daughter’s paternity and, as a result, his capacity to provide maintenance.
Contention from parties
The spouse stated that he has a child and is already married. He is not obligated to pay for any of the claims since he and his purported wife were never married. Without a doubt, even if the marriage between the husband and wife is proven, it cannot be claimed to be legal because the previous marriage is still going strong.
Analysis of Court order
Justice K. Murali Shankar of the Madras High Court ruled on a single-judge bench that even though the second marriage and the children it produced were not legal because of the first one, they were still entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
During his cross-examination, the court discovered that the respondent was hesitant to submit to a DNA test to establish his paternity for the daughter. Although a daughter was born to them, the court determined that the wife and husband were cohabitating as husband and wife. The husband’s assertion that he knew his wife before initiating the maintenance action was taken into account by the court as evidence of his infidelity and fraudulent purpose. The court also determined that the kid was the husband’s daughter rather than his purported wife, which allowed the Family Court to uphold the petitioners’ right to maintenance.
Regarding the amount of maintenance, the Court took note of the wife’s argument that the husband owns 11 homes and receives rent of Rs. 90,000 per month from his employment at ATG Tyre Company. However, the husband claims that he only makes Rs. 16000/- and after deductions, he only makes Rs. 11,500. Additionally, his father was the owner of those real estate holdings. Accordingly, the Court ruled that fixing the wife’s and daughter’s monthly maintenance at Rs. 10,000/- is quite acceptable and cannot be deemed exorbitant given the current economic climate and the condition of the parties. In light of this, the Court denied the revision petition.
CASE NAME – Loyola Selva Kumar v Sharon Nisha Crl. R.C.(MD)No.417 of 2021 & Crl. M.P.(MD)No.4388 of 2021