N RAMESH Vs. R GNANASARASWATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 26. 6. 2006 made in I. A. No: 754 of 2005 in F. C. O. P. No: 1523 of 2004 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, directing the revision petitioner/husband to pay a monthly interim maintenance of Rs. 17,000 /= to the respondent/wife and two children.

(2.) THE FCOP. No. 1523 of 2004 has been filed by the revision petitioner/husband under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of cruelty committed by the respondent/wife. Pending the said petition, the respondent/wife filed I. A. No. 754 of 2005 for interim alimony of Rs. 25,000/= per month towards her children's education and family expenses and Rs. 10,000/= towards litigation expenses. THE wife also filed O. P. No. 975 of 2005 for restitution of conjugal rights. THE petitioner/husband resisted the said petition contending that the respondent wife is a spendthrift. He is not owning any property in VI Cross St. , sastri Nagar, Kandanchavadi, Venkatarahinam Nagar and Teachers Colony. He is owning only 15 acres of agricultural lands in Sriperumbuthur and getting only 15,000/= per annum. He is not having bank balance of Rs. 1 crore as alleged by the wife. He is not having any lands worth Rs. 5 crores. After marriage the wife's father gave her 5 acres of land. His father also gave her 5. 45 acres of lands near Sriperumbuthur. THEre are coconut trees. THEre is a sugarcane cultivation. She has sufficient means. She has sufficient means to maintain herself and the children. THErefore she is not entitled to get any maintenance.

(3.) IT is the further case of the respondent that the petitioner's father Advocate Narayanasamy died after leaving vast extent of valuable properties at several places to his three sons, one of them is the petitioner. The petitioner has sold several lands for several crores of rupees along with his brothers and is having liquid cash. Though the petitioner admits certain properties standing in his name also stated in evidence that most of the properties are joint properties. But, admittedly his parents are no more and the entire properties devolved on the three sons, which includes rental, agricultural yields etc. , For the query as to the value of the lands, the petitioner did not choose to reply any answer.