S VENKATESAN Vs. J INDUMATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order passed in I. A. No. 2282/2003 in F. C. O. P. No. 728/2003 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai, is being challenged under this Revision.

(2.) THE revision petitioner is the husband. The wife had filed I. A. No. 2282/2003 under Section 24 and 26 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955, seeking interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- for herself and Rs. 5,000/- for her minor daughter and Rs. 7,500/- towards litigation expenses. There is no dispute that she is unemployed. According to the respondent/wife, the income of her husband/revision petitioner herein is Rs. 5,00,000/- per year. But she has not produced any documents to substantiate this claim. On the other hand, the husband/revision petitioner has admitted in his counter that his annual income is Rs. 50,000/ -. So, on the basis of the admitted income, the learned Family Court Judge has awarded an interim order of maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month for the wife and Rs. 1,500/- per month for her minor child and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner represents that the petitioner/husband has already paid the litigation expenses. This Court has ordered previously interim maintenance of Rs. 1000/- to the wife and Rs. 500/- to the minor child to be paid from January-2006 towards arrears of maintenance. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would represent that the same amount may be awarded as interim maintenance. But, taking into consideration the cost of living, this court is of the view that it will be very difficult for the wife, who is an unemployed, to maintain herself as well as the minor child with the meager sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month. This court is of the view that the interim maintenance awarded by the learned trial Judge is reasonable. The learned counsel for the respondent/wife would represent that O. P. 728/2002 was already dismissed for non-payment of the maintenance amount. But, she is not prepared to withdraw C. R. P. (PD ). No. 229/2006. Under such circumstance, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned trial Judge in fixing the interim maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- to the wife and Rs. 1,500/- to her child. The litigation expenses fixed by the learned trial Judge has already been paid by the revision petitioner. Under such circumstance, the revision fails and the same is dismissed and the order of the trial court in I. A. No. 2282/2003 in F. C. O. P. No. 728/2003 is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is also dismissed.