G P RAJENDRAN Vs. M VALARMATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petitioner/respondent/husband has filed this revision petition as against the order dated 17. 03. 2008 in I. A. No. 9 of 2007 in F. C. O. P. No. 90 of 2006 passed by the Family Court, Salem in awarding an interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent/petitioner/wife from the date of filing of the main FCOP till the date of disposal of the same and also the litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/- payable by the revision petitioner to the respondent/ wife.

(2.) THE respondent/petitioner/wife has filed an I. A. No. 9 of 2007 praying for an interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month and also the litigation expense of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the revision petitioner/husband.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ husband, the order dated 17. 03. 2008 in I. A. No. 9 of 2007 passed by the trial Court is in violation of principles of natural justice besides the same being illegal and that the trial Court has awarded the interim relief without considering the merits of the matter and further that the trial Court has not taken into consideration of the Ex. B. 3 Mutchilika executed by the parties in regard to the customary divorce of marriage on 19. 09. 1996 in front of the elders of the village and after the customary divorce on 19. 09. 1996 between the parties both of them have remarried and this has not been taken into account by the trial Court and that the evidence of R. W. 2 to R. W. 6 is to the effect that the respondent/wife has married one Sekar and living with him as wife and Ex. B. 4-Voter List where the respondent/wife living with her husband Sekar has not been appreciated by the trial Court in proper perspective and even Ex. B. 5-Family Ration Card has not been taken note of by the trial Court in regard to the identity of the respondent/wife and for restitution of conjugal rights a lawyer's notice has been issued on 02. 03. 2006 after a lapse of 10 years when the customary divorce has taken place on 19. 09. 1996 and moreover, the revision petitioner/husband has remarried and has five children and this aspect has not been taken note of by the trial Court and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition in furtherance of substantial cause of justice.