KUTTAPPAN Vs. THANKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petitioner is the husband of the respondent. They have three children. In M C. 2/1979 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur, order was passed under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code) directing revision petitioner to pay monthly Rs. 100/- for the maintenance of the wife and Rs. 170/- in all for the maintenance of the three children. Thereafter, husband filed O.P. 156/1984 before the District Court. Trichur seeking decree of divorce under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) on grounds of desertion and cruelty. 1540/1984 seeking an order under section 24 of the Act providing for maintenance pendentelite and expenses of the proceeding. She claimed Rs. 300/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 1000/- as litigation expenses. Application was opposed by the husband. However, the court passed an order directing the husband to pay Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses and Rs. 200/- per month as maintenance pendente lite. Court further directed that the sum of Rs. 200/- per month would be inclusive of Rs. 100/- per month ordered in her favour by the criminal court. It is this order which is now challenged.

(2.) Revision petitioner challenges the quantum fixed by the matrimonial court. He is working as conductor in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation with total emoluments of Rs. 1365/-per month. Deductions for G.P.F. and L.I.C. premium would be Rs. 123/- per month leaving a balance of Rs. 1242/- per month. Court below accepted that he has to maintain his parents and has to pay Rs. 170/- per month for the maintenance of the three children. It was on this basis that maintenance was fixed, considering his income and the fact that the wife has no Income. Considering his income and liabilities, it is difficult to hold that the quantum fixed by the court below as maintenance or as litigation expenses is excessive. Revision petitioner would contend that there are other deductions for discharge of provident fund loan and co-operative society loan. These deductions cannot obviously be taken into account of computing his income. I do not find any ground to interfere with the quantum fixed by the court below.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that in view of the order of maintenance passed by the criminal court under section 125 of the Code matrimonial court could not have passed order under section 24 of the Act. Learned counsel would contend that there cannot be two parallel orders coexisting at the same time. According to him, matrimonial court should have refrained from passing order of maintenance. This ground is not specifically taken in the revision petition, but I am considering the same since it has been urged before me.