Madras High Court pulls up family court, increases maintenance
The trial court passed the order relying on the submission made by his father.
Chennai: The Madras high court has pulled up a family court judge, Salem, for passing an order without hearing views of a techie working in Canada in maintenance petition filed by his estranged wife. The trial court passed the order relying on the submission made by his father.
Stating that it is disheartening to note that the family court shall not be a mute spectator during cross-examination of parties, Justice RMT Teekaa Raman has vacated the decree and ordered an increase of maintenance from Rs 10,000 to Rs 50,000 per month for her.
The matter relates to marriage between Kavitha and C. Prabhakar, solemnised on May 28, 2007, at a marriage hall in Erode, as per Hindu rites and customs. Prabhakar was working in Canada as a team leader in HCL Technologies. Following a dispute with him, she approached family court, Salem seeking a decree of maintenance.
On behalf of Prabhakar, his father, Dr Chandrasekaran appeared before the family court during the cross-examination. Dr Chandrasekaran submitted that she spent only 8 days in the matrimonial home in Canada and due to the differences between them, she returned to India on payment of three times of the flight ticket.
On completion of the trial, the judge, family court, Salem, in an order dated July 31, 2013, granted maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month to her. Aggrieved over this, she approached the Madras high court seeking enchantment of maintenance amount to Rs 1 lakh stating that he was drawing a salary of Rs 3 lakh per month.
Justice RMT. Raman said husband neither entered into the witness box to deny the maintenance claim of the wife nor contested the quantum of the amount she sought. He had not made himself available for cross-examining as to the quantum of income before the trial court and to arrive at a conclusion for awarding maintenance, which assumes significance.
When the husband evaded all the judicial proceedings in India and seems to have taken a decree of divorce in Canada on the technicality based upon the law available in the foreign state, which was not binding upon this court in Tamil Nadu. The trial court ought to have drawn an adverse inference upon him for not disclosing his income, he said.The trial court has committed an error in relying upon the evidence of the father in the absence of evidence of the husband and is hereby vacated, the judge added.