I AMUDHAVALLY Vs. P VISSOUVANADANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIM-adverting upon the order dated 26.6.2008 passed in I.A.No.1241 of 2007 in M.O.P.No.127 of 2007, by the Family Judge, Pondicherry, this revision petition is filed.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of this revision petition, as stood exposited from the averments in the revision petition, would run thus: THE respondent herein, who is the husband of the petitioner filed MOP.NO.127 of 2007 seeking divorce. During the pendency of the O.P., I.A.NO.1241 of 2007 was filed by the wife as against the husband, seeking maintenance for herself and for the minor child, aged about two years. THE Family Court, vide its order dated 26.6.2008 awarded maintenance of Rs.500/-per month payable by the respondent herein to the child and the claim of the wife was negatived. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the said order, this revision has been focussed on various grounds.

(3.) INDUBITABLY and incontrovertibly, the relationship between the revision petitioner herein and the respondent is an admitted one. No doubt on the plea of cruelty, the husband seeks divorce. At this juncture, it has to be seen as to whether at the time of awarding interim maintenance, a finding is required to be given to who was at fault. The fault theory is having no place at all while the Court adjudging the entitlement for maintenance. The Court has to see whether the claimant is having sufficient means to maintain herself or not. Incontrovertibly and unassailably, the wife, as per her own version, is earning a sum of Rs.100/- per day. The core question arises as to whether based on such fact alone her claim for maintenance could be rejected.