Madras High Court
Family LawConstitutional Law

After noticing many pandemic-era couples lived together for only months, Madras High Court orders statewide data collection to explore tailored dispute resolution

S.Sivabalan vs R.Sivasakthipriya

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: October 16, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
After noticing many pandemic-era couples lived together for only months, Madras High Court orders statewide data collection to explore tailored dispute resolution. S.Sivabalan vs R.Sivasakthipriya. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The respondent sought interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in O.P. No. 377 of 2023. The Sub Court, Alandur, allowed the application and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000 per month. The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Source reference: paras. 1, 3–4

While entertaining the revision, the High Court directed interim payment of Rs. 7,000 per month and payment of arrears; the petitioner paid the arrears as directed and continued monthly payments at that rate.

Source reference: paras. 1, 3–4
02

Issues

Whether the Sub Court’s order fixing interim maintenance at Rs. 10,000 per month warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution

Source reference: paras. 1, 5–6

Whether further directions were required concerning the arrears and disposal of the pending matrimonial petition

Source reference: para. 6
03

Law Applied

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provides the statutory basis for a spouse’s application for interim maintenance.

Source reference: para. 1

The High Court considered its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in reviewing the subordinate court’s maintenance order.

Source reference: paras. 1, 5

The judgment cites no precedent and does not set out a broader test for Article 227 intervention.

Source reference: no citation
04

Reasoning

The High Court found that the Sub Court had properly exercised its discretion and that Rs. 10,000 per month was reasonable and not exorbitant. It therefore declined to interfere under Article 227, sustaining the maintenance order.

Source reference: para. 5

Because the petitioner had paid only Rs. 7,000 per month under the High Court’s interim direction, the Court ordered payment of the resulting arrears within four weeks. Given that the original petition dated from 2023, it also directed the Sub Court to dispose of it within four months.

Source reference: para. 6
05

Holding

The revision petition was disposed of, and the Sub Court’s order fixing maintenance at Rs. 10,000 per month was sustained.

The petitioner was directed to pay the arrears within four weeks, and the Sub Court was directed to dispose of O.P. No. 377 of 2023 within four months; there was no order as to costs.

Source reference: paras. 6–7

Separately, the Court directed Principal District Judges across Tamil Nadu to collect data on matrimonial disputes involving marriages solemnised between 2020 and 2022, for a report to be placed before the Court before the next hearing, and listed the matter for that purpose.

Source reference: paras. 8–11
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Hindu Marriage Act, 19551

Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

S.SivabalanvsR.Sivasakthipriya

Madras High Court · October 16, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment