RAMESH Vs. AMBIGESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/respondent (Husband) has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 30.3.2010 in I.A. No. 10 of 2010 in H.M.O.P. No. 13 of 2009 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Rasipuram. The Learned Subordinate Judge, Rasipuram, while passing the order in I.A. No. 10 of 2010 in H.M.O.P. No. 13 of 2009 on 30.3.2010, has among other things, observed that on the side of the Petitioner (Husband), no evidence has been produced to show that he has got some deformity in his body and the only stand taken on his side is that the respondent (Wife) is going for work and earning a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month and therefore, without going for employment, the Petitioner(Husband), by sleeping in bed in his house, thinking of earning money from the Respondent (Wife) and to live in a comfortable manner as he likes, for which Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act will not come to his aid etc. and resultantly, dismissed the application with costs.

(2.) It is to be pointed out that the Revision Petitioner (husband), in I.A. No. 10 of 2010, has claimed ad interim alimony of Rs. 5,000/- per month and also litigation expenses of Rs. 20,000/- from the Respondent/Wife. The Respondent/Wife has filed a detailed counter to I.A. No. 10 of 2010 on the file of the trial Court, inter alia stating that after marriage and after they have been to Bangalore, the Petitioner/Husband has informed that he has no liking for his job and wanted to do business and therefore, he has not gone for job and has remained in the house and also for doing business, he demanded from her that she should bring a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from her parents and by so saying, he indulged in drinking and also beat and harassed her etc.

(3.) In the affidavit in I.A. No. 10 of 2010 in H.M.O.P. No. 13 of 2009, the Revision Petitioner/Husband (as Petitioner) has stated that at the time of his marriage, he has been employed at Bharathi Airtel at Bangalore on a monthly salary of Rs. 17,000/- and that his wife has been employed in Tata Sky Software Company on a low salary. This Court pertinently points out that the Respondent/Wife in H.M.O.P. No. 13 of 2009 on the file of the trial Court as Petitioner in paragraph 4 has clearly averred that the Revision Petitioner/Husband has stated that he is working as Technical Engineer in Airtel Company at Bangalore on a monthly salary of Rs. 17,000/-.