KARTHIK Vs. K KEERTHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Principal Judge of Family Court at Chennai dated 27.8.2010 made in I.A.S.R. No. 5290 of 2010 in O.P. No. 383 of 2007.

(2.) The Petitioner herein has filed O.P. No. 383 of 2007 against his wife for dissolution of the marriage. In the said proceedings, his minor daughter K. Keerthana, through her mother Narayanee alias Krithika, has filed an application in I.A. No. 3091 of 2009 for interim maintenance. By an order dated 10.2.2010, the learned Principal Judge of Family Court, Chennai, directed the Petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-per month as interim maintenance from the date of petition till the disposal of the said O.P. The Petitioner, challenging the said order, has filed a civil revision petition before this Court in C.R.P (PD) No. 675 of 2010. The said revision came to be dismissed by this Court, by an order dated 7.4.2010. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an application in I.A.S.R. No. 5290 of 2010 to reduce the interim maintenance. The said application was rejected as not maintainable and the present civil revision petition is directed against the said order.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that under Section 26 of the Indian Marriage Act, 1955, the Petitioner has got a right to seek modification of the earlier order of interim maintenance. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent contended that whatever ground that has been raised in the affidavit in support of the present application was raised by the Petitioner in the counter to the interim maintenance application filed by the Respondent in I.A. No. 3091 of 2009. That apart, in the civil revision petition filed before this Court in CRP PD No. 675 of 2010 challenging the order of interim maintenance of the Family Court, the Petitioner raised the same grounds, which he has raised in the present civil revision petition. Hence, according to the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, the Court below has rightly rejected the application filed by the Petitioner.