The Madras High Court in the case M Mahalakshmi v. M Vijayakumar observed while hearing a plea filed for transfer a matrimonial dispute from Pudukottai to Ponneri in Tamil Nadu. It has been noted by the Madras High Court that the father, who was working as a Village Administration Officer was not paying interim maintenance to his 10-year-old daughter. The bench headed by Justice SM Subramaniam in the case observed and has directed him to make such payment irrespective of visitation rights, the court has also directed the District Collector for taking strict action against the officer under service rules if he failed to pay such interim maintenance. The court stated that in event of any failure on the part of the respondent in paying the Interim Maintenance to the minor girl child, the liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit a complaint to the District Collector concerned under whom the respondent is working as the Village Administrative Officer (VAO). At the outset, the District Collector concerned is bound to initiate appropriate Disciplinary Proceedings against the respondent for committing an act of misconduct under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules. It has also been noted by the court that the father, being the natural guardian and an earning member was duty bound to take care of the child when the mother was unemployed. In the present case, the father being the natural guardian under the Guardian and Wards Act and is bound to maintain his minor daughter or son by paying maintenance even in such circumstances, where there being a matrimonial dispute or for visitation right. While considering the other facts and circustances, such rights are to be established. Howeve r, t h e c o u r t noted while highlighting the importance of paying maintenance that the Constitution has considered maintenance as a measure of social justice to prevent women and children from falling into destitution and vagrancy. Earlier, the court while considering a similar petition for transfer, the court had noted that even when parents were not filing applications for interim maintenance, it was the duty of the court to guard the interests of the child and to allow the maintenance. It has also been highlighted by the court that the husband cannot escape from this liability on the ground that the wife was educated and could support herself. The court further stated that the transfer of the case is to be considered, since the petitioner is unemployed and taking care of 10 year old girl child and she is residing along with her parents at Chennai. Thus, the divorce case which is being filed by the respondent is to be transferred to the place, where the petitioner resides. Accordingly, the court allowed the transfer noting that the petitioner was unemployed and taking care of the 10 year old child and thus it was difficult for the petitioner to contest the case at Pudukottai.
