S. GEETHA AND ANOTHER Vs. A. SARAVANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 21.01.2013 made in I.A. No.102 of 2011 in H.M.O.P. No.130 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Attur.

(2.) The first petitioner is the wife, second petitioner is the daughter of first petitioner and respondent is the husband in H.M.O.P. No.130 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Attur. The respondent filed the said H.M.O.P against the first petitioner for divorce. Earlier, the first petitioner filed H.M.O.P. No.15 of 2005 for restitution of conjugal rights. In H.M.O.P. No.130 of 2010, the petitioners filed I.A. No.102 of 2011 for an interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the petitioners from the date of filing of the H.M.O.P. According to the petitioners, parents of the respondent is owning agricultural land and respondent is doing business and getting a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month. The respondent did not maintain the petitioners at any point of time and first petitioner alone is meeting out the educational expenses, medical expenses and other expenses of the second petitioner. The first petitioner is working as part-time lecturer at a College in Attur and is getting a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month. The said employment is not permanent. The income of the first petitioner is not sufficient to meet out the expenses of the petitioners. The first petitioner also made various allegations against the respondent on merits, in H.M.O.P. No.130 of 2010.

(3.) The respondent filed counter affidavit and denied all the allegations made against him and submitted that due to the cruelty by the first petitioner, the respondent could not concentrate on his work and he is not working or doing any business and is not earning any income. He is depending on his parents. He also further submitted that on the false complaint given by the first petitioner, the respondent and his parents were detained in the judicial custody. The first petitioner is not maintaining the minor child. The child is in the custody of the brother of the first petitioner. The respondent filed application for custody of the minor child. In the said G.W.O.P. No.59 of 2005, the respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- towards maintenance of the minor child. The visitation right ordered was thwarted by the first petitioner. The first petitioner is working as a lecturer in a college and is earning handsome salary and she is not entitled for any maintenance and prayed for dismissal of the application.