(1.) This Revision has been preferred invoking the power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the Order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode dated 10.12.2011 made in I.A. No. 160 of 2011 in H.M.O.P. No. 27 of 2008 on the file of the said Court. The arguments advanced by Mr. P. Valliappan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and by Mr. N. Manokaran, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent are heard. The materials produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.
(2.) The Petitioner-Vasanthi was married to the Respondent-Soundararajan. The marital life was not happy and the Respondent filed H.M.O.P. No. 27 of 2008 on the file of the Trial Court for dissolution of marriage under Sections 13(1)(i) & 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the grounds of adultery and cruelty. One Shankar was also arrayed as the Second Respondent in the HMOP alleging to be the adulterer. Pending disposal of the HMOP, the Petitioner filed an Application in I.A. No. 192/2006 claiming Litigation Expenses and Interim Maintenance. The said Application was allowed and the Respondent herein was directed to provide Interim Maintenance at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month. The Respondent was paying the amount in accordance with the said Order made in I.A. No. 192/2008.
(3.) Subsequently in 2011, the Petitioner filed I.A. No. 160/2011 citing Section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as the appropriate provision, seeking modification of the Order of the Interim Maintenance/enhancement of Interim Maintenance from Rs. 750/- per month to Rs. 3,000/- per month. The said Petition came to be dismissed by the Trial Court by Order dated 10.12.2011 holding that the Second Application for Interim Maintenance or for modification of the Order of Interim Maintenance would not be maintainable. The legality and sustainability of the said order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode are questioned in the present Revision.