MARIE ANTOINE MOSELLE Vs. ROSYANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the fair and decreetal order passed in I. A. No. 842 of 2017 in M. O. P. No. 326 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court, Pondicherry by order dated 22. 06. 2018. Before the Court below, the revision petitioner/ husband filed the main petition that is M. O. P. No. 326 of 2015 seeking for divorce against the first respondent namely Rosyane who is the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner. In the said petition, which is pending before the Court below, the first respondent/wife filed the present interlocutory application in I. A. No. 842 of 2017, seeking for interim maintenance / interim alimony from the revision petitioner/husband. After hearing both sides and considering the merits and demerits as well as the claim and counter claim of the parties, the learned Judge, by an order dated 22. 06. 2018 has allowed the said I. A. , by ordering a sum of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only), payable by the revision petitioner / husband to the first respondent wife as monthly interim maintenance, that apart, a sum of rupees One Thousand payable towards the litigation expenses. Aggrieved over the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

(2.) I have heard Mr. R. S. Raveendhren, learned counsel for the petitioner, who would submit that, first of all, the said I. A. , is not maintainable before the Court below as the said I. A. , since had been entertained by invoking the power under Article 270 of the French Civil Code, where there has been no scope of interim alimony / interim maintenance and therefore, the said I. A. , should not have been entertained by the Court below.

(3.) In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, eventhough, the said point was not originally raised at the time of taking the said I. A. , for decision, subsequently the said point was raised and based on the said jurisdictional point or the power of the Court, the revision petitioner / husband filed a review petition against the order made in I. A. No. 842 of 2017. However, the said review petition has not at all been entertained and not even been numbered and the same had been rejected by returning the same stating that a revision or appeal can be preferred before the appropriate appellate forum.