Karthik.T | Sastra Deemed University Thanjavur | 1st July 2020<\/p>\n\n\n\n
S. Murugan<\/strong>\u00a0Vs<\/strong>\u00a0Tamilarasi<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n FACTS:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The fact of this case is the petitioner who is a central government servant. Works in C.R.P.F. They have two sons who were well educated and earning a good salary for a month. The petitioner and the respondent weren\u2019tco-habitations\u00a0The respondent was getting Rs.15,000\/- as monthly maintenance from the petitioner. The petitioner filed this case because he is going to retire from employment and after retirement, he cannot be able to give Rs. 15,000 each month. So he prays the court to reduce the maintenance amount.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ISSUES:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Whether retirement is a ground for reducing the maintenance amount?<\/p>\n\n\n\n LEGAL PROVISION:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/p>\n\n\n\n PETITIONER CONTENTION:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The petitioner contended that he is going to retire from his employment and after his retirement, there is no source for his income so he prays to the court that he will not be able to pay Rs 15,000 as maintenance so please reduce the amount of maintenance to be paid. And further he contended that his wife is working in a private sector and getting a salary of Rs.10,000 per month and also she is getting rent for his house.<\/p>\n\n\n\n RESPONDANT CONTENTION:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The respondent contended that his husband after retiring will get a lump sum amount. With that amount, he will be enjoying and also he will be getting an amount as pension every month so he should pay maintenance amount without any reduction <\/p>\n\n\n\n OBSERVATION:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The court observed that the petitioner will get a lump sum amount and a pension for every month and there is no evidence that his wife is working in a private sector and also getting rent from his house.<\/p>\n\n\n\n JUDGMENT:<\/u><\/strong>\u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court held that the maintenance amount cannot be reduced and further said that the husband cannot dictate his wife to go and get maintenance from his son. And hence retirement is not a ground for reducing the maintenance amount.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Karthik.T | Sastra Deemed University Thanjavur | 1st July 2020 S. Murugan\u00a0Vs\u00a0Tamilarasi FACTS: The fact of this case is the petitioner who is a central government servant. Works in C.R.P.F. They have two sons who were well educated and earning a good salary for a month. The petitioner and the respondent weren\u2019tco-habitations\u00a0The respondent was getting […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":167,"featured_media":3376,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[66,85,28],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n