Kamalasanan alias Suresh vs Sreelaja

Honourable Mr. Justice G. Rajasuria

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 30.07.2012 passed in I.A.No. 730 of 2011 in H.M.O.P. No. 1 of

2011 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/husband would echo

the cri de coeur and heart burns of his client to the effect that in the H.M.O.P. No. 1 of 2011 initiated by him as against his wife, the wife filed

I.A.No. 730 of 2011 seeking interim maintenance as well as litigation expenses; the lower Court awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three

Thousand only) per month towards interim maintenance and a sum of Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) towards litigation expenses.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been focussed on various grounds.

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/husband would submit that the wife is earning sufficiently by performing service in a Compute

Centre, but the husband is only a coolie; in such a case, he cannot be compelled to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) per

month towards interim maintenance; over and above that, the litigation expenses awarded by the lower Court would not arise at all because the

Legal Aid authorities are available and if at all the wife wanted some assistance, she could have approached the Legal Aid Centre.

The point for consideration is as to whether there is any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the lower Court in awarding a sum of Rs.

3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) per month towards interim maintenance and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) towards

litigation expenses?

The Point:

At the outset itself, I would like to fumigate my mind with the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Amarjit Kaur Vs. Harbhajan Singh and

Another,

A mere running of the eye over the aforesaid precedent would exemplify and demonstrate that a lady who is in need of maintenance cannot be

driven from pillar to post in search of evidence so as to prove the financial wherewithal of her husband. The relationship is an admitted one and

there is nothing to indicate that the wife is earning sufficiently to maintain her body and soul together and also meet her expenses towards food,

shelter and clothing.

As such, in order to keep both the ends to meet and keep the wolf from the door, necessarily a lady would require maintenance not less than

Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred only) per day. Accordingly, the lower Court awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) per

month towards interim maintenance which cannot, even by phantasmagorical thoughts be described and portrayed as exorbitant. Over and above

that, a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) towards litigation expenses, is also on the lower side. The litigation expenses does not

mean that the lawyer''s fees alone, but her to and fro expenses in contacting her lawyer and other expenses should also be included.

Wherefore, I am of the view that no interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is warranted. The point is

answered accordingly. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No

costs.