JOSEPH DOMINIC BRITTO Vs. SAMPOORNA MARY ALIAS PHILO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Revision Petition is filed against the order of ordering interim maintenance as well as litigation expenses to the respondent/wife.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would contend that the wife/respondent has already filed an application before the Court at Mumbai under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. wherein the claim of maintenance to the wife/respondent was not granted but a direction was issued to pay maintenance to the minor son. It is also contended that considering the fact that the petitioner is getting a meagre amount by way of terminal amount, the interim maintenance passed by the Family Court is highly exorbitant.

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that all the way the respondent has to travel from Mumbai to Chennai to appear in the proceedings initiated by the husband/petitioner pending before the Family Court at Chennai and as such there is no illegality in ordering the litigation expenses. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the rejection of the earlier claim made by the respondent under Sec. 125 of the Cr. P. C. is not a bar to file an application for the grant of interim maintenance in the proceedings initiated by the husband/petitioner. 3. I have appreciated the rival claims of both the learned counsel.