Denial of Visitation Rights Not a Ground To Grant Exemption from Payment of Maintainace : Madras High Court

According to Justice SM Subramaniam, the husband’s need to pay maintenance was placed on a “higher pedestal” than the wife’s.

The Madras High Court recently ruled that a spouse who is divorcing his wife and child cannot stop providing maintenance to them because he has been denied visitation rights. V. Kirubaharan v. P. Geetha

In an order issued on December 22, Justice SM Subramaniam stated that the husband’s commitment to give maintenance was on a “higher pedestal” than the wife’s.

The court further stated that parents and legal guardians of minor children were required to support their children and that courts could order the payment of support to a minor kid even in the absence of a mother’s application for interim support.

A woman’s petition asking that her divorce procedures be moved from Poonamallee to Tiruchirappalli district was being heard by Justice Subramaniam. The woman said that it was impossible for her to travel to Poonamallee for the court proceedings because she and her 11-month-old kid had moved to her parents’ house in Tiruchirappalli after their divorce. She claimed that although she was a dentist, she was not currently employed and had no other means of support.

The petitioner’s estranged husband’s failure to pay the child’s interim maintenance of 5,000 was brought to the Court’s attention during the hearing.

According to the husband’s attorney, he opted not to pay maintenance since the wife would not allow her estranged spouse to see their kid.

The Court strongly disagreed with such a submission.

“The husband’s attitude and behaviour are shown by the tenor of his guidance. The 11-month-old female child’s father, none other but him. Under no circumstances would this court support the husband’s approach, who works for the government. As the child’s father, the respondent is liable for the child’s upkeep. He must therefore share the kid’s maintenance with the petitioner in order for the child, who is currently in the petitioner-custody, wife’s to live “It said.

In the end, the court ordered the relocation of the proceedings to Tiruchirappalli and ordered the husband to provide the wife with interim maintenance in the amount of 5,000 per month.

Advocate P Anitha appeared for the petitioner wife. Advocate S Saravanakumar appeared for the respondent husband.

Written By Rishav Raj , BBA LL.B, 4th semester (RNB GLOBAL UNIVERSITY)

Admin