A BOOPATHI Vs. SRILATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent who lost in the proceedings before the lower court is the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE respondent/petitioner is the wife of the revision petitioner. She filed the petition under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act for interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month for herself and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the minor daughter and Rs. 2,500/- towards litigation expenses. However, the respondent contested the claim on various grounds. After considering the evidence available in the case and after hearing both sides, the learned Subordinate Judge passed the impugned order granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent herein and Rs. 1,000/- per month to her minor daughter, Banupriya as interim maintenance from the date of filing of the earlier proceedings between the parties in H.M.O.P. No. 38 of 2001 and also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,500/- towards litigation expenses. Aggrieved by the said order, the husband has come forward with this revision.

(3.) AS regards the first contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the revision petition is not maintainable in view of the amended provision under Section 115CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, he has drawn my attention to the decisions reported in 2003 (6) S.C.C. 659 ( Shiv Shakti Co-op. Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers ) and 2003 (6) S.C.C. 675 ( Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai ) and argued that in view of the proviso under Section 115(1)CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 the order under challenge is not revisable.