P. SATHYA PRIYA Vs. S.T.S. PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 05.11.2013 made in I.A.No.46 of 2011 in H.M.O.P.No.196 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee.

(2.) The petitioner is wife and respondent is husband. The respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.196 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee, for divorce. In the said H.M.O.P., petitioner filed I.A.No.46 of 2011 claiming interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month for maintenance of two children and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards litigation expenses. According to the petitioner, the respondent is employed in Infosys, Bangalore and is earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. In addition to that, he is owning 30 Acres of land. The respondent is not maintaining the petitioner and two children. The petitioner has also stated that she filed H.M.O.P.No.105 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee, for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the petitioner and respondent purchased a land at Horamagu, Bangalore, in the year 2003 in their joint names and subsequently, it was sold by the respondent and the said amount was taken only by the respondent. The respondent has never taken care of his children and he is not maintaining them and he has never contributed any amount for their educational expenses.

(3.) The respondent filed counter affidavit and contended that due to the attitude of the petitioner and her family members, he was depressed and lost his job. He is not owning 30 Acres of agricultural land as alleged by the petitioner. A plot was purchased in the joint name of petitioner and respondent by obtaining loan from IDBI Bank in the year 2004. The petitioner refused to contribute monthly E.M.I. and refused to sign the required forms from the bank. Subsequently, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent. The petitioner agreed to release the property in February 2007 after accepting the cash payment in the presence of her father. Her maternal uncle has signed as a witness in the release deed. The petitioner has obtained house loan along with her 68 year old mother as second applicant and has constructed a house in the year 2007. Only after construction of house, petitioner filed cancellation of the release deed signed by her in May 2008 in Bangalore, to harass the respondent. According to the respondent, petitioner is highly qualified and she is working in M/S.Scope International Limited, Chennai and is earning a sum of Rs. 90,000/- per month. Therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. The interim maintenance claimed for Rs. 50,000/- for two children are exorbitant and prayed for dismissal of the application.