L R RAJENDRAN Vs. GAJALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in I.A. No. 65 of 1982 in O.P. No. 235 of 1981, on the file of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, is the petitioner herein. I.A. No. 65 of 1982 in O.P. No. 235 of 1981 was filed by the respondent (wife) under S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for directing the petitioner (husband) to pay to the respondent Rs. 1,200/-towards legal expenses and Rs. 400/- per month towards maintenance.

(2.) The case of the respondent/wife is as follows : She is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein, that the petitioner has preferred O.P. No. 235 of 1981 against the respondent herein seeking a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The respondent herein filed a statement of objections and she is contesting the same. In the meanwhile, she has filed I.A. No. 65 of 1982 under S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming Rs. 1,200/- towards legal expenses and Rs. 400/- per month towards maintenance alleging that she has no property or income for her maintenance, that she is living with her aged parents as a burden to her parents and that the petitioner herein, who is the husband of the respondent, is earning monthly salary at the rate of Rs. 800/- as a Government servant and that he is not providing any maintenance for her. Therefore, the respondent herein prayed for a direction to the petitioner to pay to her litigation expenses and also interim alimony as prayed for by her. According to her, she is having no income or property and her parents are also leading a very hard life and she cannot afford litigation expenses to contest the main petition instituted by the petitioner frivolously and, therefore, it is necessary to pass an order for interim maintenance and also for litigation expenses as prayed for by her.

(3.) On the other hand, the case put forward by the petitioner herein in his counter-affidavit is that his monthly salary including allowances comes to Rs. 382.75 p. after deductions and this amount is quite insufficient for his maintenance and also for the maintenance of his son Ramkumar, who is aged six years and therefore, he cannot provide any maintenance as prayed for by the respondent. He has denied that his monthly salary is Rs. 800/-, that the respondent is living with her aged parents and that she is leading a hard life. He has claimed that the respondent is living with her sister's husband, a film producer and director, and that the respondent's brother is also employed under the said film producer drawing a high salary and that the respondent is also earning nearly Rs. 500/- per mensem in tailoring and the said amount is more than sufficient for the maintenance of the respondent herein. The petitioner claimed that the respondent is not entitled to claim any maintenance for the reasons aforesaid and that he is leading a hard life and he finds it difficult to maintain himself and his son Ramkumar with his meagre monthly salary and as the respondent is in affluent circumstances, the respondent has to provide maintenance to him.