CHITRA SRINIVASAN Vs. R SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decretal dated 8.8.2001 made in I.A.No.520 of 2000 in O.P.No.742 of 1997 by the Court of II Additional Family Judge, Chennai and to enhance the maintenance amount.

(2.) Tracing the history of the above civil revision petition having come to be filed, it comes to be known that the respondent herein has filed O.P.No.742 of 1997 before the Court of II Additional Family Judge, Chennai for divorce. Pending the said Original Petition, the petitioner herein has filed a petition in I.A.No.520 of 2000 praying interim maintenance and other reliefs, and since the said petition was allowed granting a sum of Rs.500/= as monthly maintenance, besides the other reliefs, challenging the quantum of interim maintenance, the petitioner herein has come forward to file the civil revision petition on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of revision such as that the learned Judge was wrong in determining the quantum of interim maintenance on the sole ground that the respondent is a blind man and that he cannot work without the help of others and this fact itself would enable the Court to decide the issue as to the fixation of quantum of interim maintenance; that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the respondent/husband is a graduate, well built, and is employed in the Insurance Company in a respectable post and is doing the job independently and is drawing a salary of Rs.9,401/=; that the learned Judge was wrong in observing that the respondent being a blind man, with great difficulty, has been working in the office and earning the income, when the respondent himself has not expressed his difficulties in the counter and the learned Judge ought to have seen that no company/employer would pay salary to any person in a gratuitous manner; that the learned Judge has erred in showing sympathy towards the respondent/husband that he is a blind man in the interim alimony application filed by the petitioner/wife when she is contesting and resisting the petition filed by the husband for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; that the learned Judge ought to have shown sympathy towards the petitioner/wife when she pleaded that she did not have any source of income for her livelihood and that she is depending on her aged parents; that the learned Judge was wrong in observing that the petitioner/wife is not entitled to claim interim maintenance from the respondent, who is a blind man, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the petitioner cannot invoke the said provision to the facts arising in this case; that the learned Judge has overlooked the fact that the respondent/husband has only moved the petition for Divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and that the wife, in spite of the physical inability of her husband, is opposing this petition filed by the husband and in such circumstances, the husband having filed the petition for divorce, ought to have given the interim alimony as prayed for by the wife for her livelihood; that the learned Judge ought to have seen that Section 24 does not say that the interim alimony will not be granted to the wife in a case where the husband is a physically handicapped person; that the Court cannot import limitation on the Section when the Section is clear in respect of granting the quantum of interim maintenance; that the learned Judge was wrong in taking into consideration the net salary of the respondent/husband in determining the quantum of interim maintenance payable to the petitioner/wife; that the learned Judge has erred in taking into account the deductions shown in the salary certificate produced by the respondent while fixing the interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act; that the order of the learned Judge in determining the monthly interim maintenance under Section 24 at Rs.500/= is arbitrary as it is not based on any material and the amount so determined is not a reasonable one and is based on assumption; that the learned Judge was wrong in observing that the petitioner/wife is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 24 and Section 24 of the Act does not visualize these types of cases and this observation is putting a spokes on the provisions of law when there is no restriction or limitation in the Section, resulting in determination of interim maintenance below the par and hence this revision.

(3.) During arguments, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would only reiterate the points raised in the petition and would cite the following judgments in support of her case. (i) M.Ravishankar v. R.Pushpa {I (1998) DMC 197} (ii) Rajesh v. Anuradha {II (1998) DMC 440} (iii) Sudha @ Ranjana R.Patil v. Rajkumar Deoganda Patil {II (1998) DMC 417} So far as first judgment cited above is concerned, it is held therein: