JEYALAKSHMI Vs. SENTHILKUMAR @ CHOKKALINGA PANDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order made in I.A. No. 42 of 2018 in HMOP. No. 158 of 2017 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

(2.) The petitioner and the respondent are wife and husband and their marriage was solemnised on 26.10.2001 and out of the wedlock, first daughter namely, Baladharshini, was born on 15.01.2003 and the second daughter namely, Varshini was born on 14.02.2006. According to the petitioner, she and her children were thrown out from the matrimonial home and admittedly petition in DVA. No. 14/2017 under Section 12 read with Sections 18, 19, 20, 22 of the Domestic Violence Act 2005, was filed on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Kovilpatti. The respondent filed HMOP.No.158 of 2017 for divorce before the Sub Court, Kovilpatti. During the pendency of both the cases, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 42 of 2018 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for maintenance. Admittedly, the petitioner's daughters are studying in 10th Standard and 7th Standard and the petitioner not able to meet out the expenses, has filed the petition for maintenance claiming Rs. 10,000/- for herself and Rs. 10,000/- each for her children including food, basic amenities etc., and Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation expenses. The learned Judge after hearing both sides, has awarded maintenance at Rs. 2,000/- per month for the petitioner, Rs. 2,000/- to the children along with Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses. Aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance, the wife has filed this revision for enhancement.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent is a police man and he has sufficient means to take care of the family. The Trial Court without considering the monetary fluctuation, inflation and enormous increase in the cost of living, has awarded the meagre amount as maintenance. According to the petitioner, the respondent is having vast land and doing agriculture and therefore, he has the potential to pay the money. Admittedly, the salary certificate of the respondent has been produced which shows that he is receiving salary around Rs. 40,000/-. Though no evidence has been placed to prove that the respondent owns agricultural lands, salary certificate of the respondent has been produced before the Court below and therefore, the learned Judge ought to have ordered reasonable amount as maintenance.