RAJAMBAL Vs. MURUGAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Civil Revision Petition filed by the wife Rajambal, petitioner in I. A. No. 1013 of 1982 in M. O. P. No. 14 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the learned First Additional District Judge, Pondicherry. The application was filed by the revision petitioner herein before the lower Court under the provisions of S.24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against her husband Murugappan alias Kumaresan praying for Rs. 1000/- towards interim maintenance per month and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation expenses. The husband-respondent herein filed an application M. O. P. No. 14 of 1981 before the lower Court for restitution of conjugal rights. The revision petitioner herein had alleged in her petition that her husband has left the marital abode of the revision petitioner herein that subsequently the revision petitioner being driven out from the marital abode, had completed her Plus 2 studies and now has joined M. B. B. S. course in Stanley Medical College, Madras and she has completed first year course and the revision petitioner has no means or any income. It is further alleged by her that the respondent has not returned the jewels and wearing apparels, sarees, etc., till date to her. The revision petitioner finds it very difficult to maintain herself and also defend the legal proceedings instituted by her husband.

(2.) On the other hand, the case of the respondent-husband Murugappan is that the petition is not maintainable and that the past conduct between the parties should be taken into consideration. The revision petitioner herein used to leave the company of the respondent very often without any basis and in spite of change of residence to Kathirkamam, the revision petitioner continued her visits to her parent's house without his knowledge. The revision petitioner left the residence on 3-9-79 and did not come back. The allegation that she was driven away by the respondent is not correct. The revision petitioner cannot join any course like M.B.B.S., and seek assistance of the husband to complete the course under the guise of maintenance. She never sought the consent of the respondent for joining such a course. The maintenance cannot and does not include the full expenses of the college education. The respondent herein is aged only 22 years and he is a student in the local college and has no occupation. He has no source of income. He does not own any property nor has any income from any property.

(3.) The revision petitioner herein filed a rejoinder inter alia stating that it is only the respondent who drove her away from the marital abode and he has never taken any steps to know whether she is alive or dead. The respondent has to pay the hostel fees and litigation expenses. The respondent, with intent to deny the legal maintenance that has to be paid to the revision petitioner, has chosen to transfer all his business rights to his father. Now the respondent claims that he has no income of his own either to set up a separate family to pay maintenance.