M PALANI Vs. MEENAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Revision is directed against the order of the II Additional family Court dated 6-11 -2007 made in I. A. No. 2325 of 2007 in O. S. No. 101 of 2007.

(2.) THE petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the above referred suit and the defendant thereon is the respondent. The petitioner laid the suit against the respondent before the above referred Court for declaration that he and the respondent herein are not married to each other and for consequential injunction restraining her from representing and receiving the benefits as his wife and for costs. In the said proceeding, the respondent had taken out an application in I. A. No. 2325 of 2007 for maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month for food, cloth, shelter and other basic necessities. The said application was filed under Section 20 read with section 26 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the said application by an order dated 6-11-2007, the learned Judge of the ii Additional Family Court, Chennai directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. l,ooo/-per month as maintenance to the respondent herein from the date of petition till the disposal of the suit. The said order is canvassed in this Revision.

(3.) MRS. Sudha Ramalingam, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent is not entitled to any mainte-nance since the petitioner and the respondent have not lived together at any point of time and hence the respondent cannot claim protection under any of the provisions of the "the Protection of Women from Domestic violence Act, 2005" (hereinafter called as "the Act" ). Further, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Section 12 of the Act contemplates report from the protection Officer so as to enable the learned judge to pass an order of maintenance. Further according to the learned counsel, the respondent is not an aggrieved person and hence she cannot file an application seeking maintenance.