Marimuthu vs Muthulakshmi

Honourable Mr. Justice G. Rajasuria

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition would run thus:

The husband filed H.M.O.P. for restitution of conjugal rights as against his wife. Meanwhile, the wife filed an application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance. After hearing both the sides, the Lower Court awarded interim maintenance in a sum of Rs. 1,500/- payable by the husband to the wife and also awarded litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 4,000/-. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the Revision has been filed on various grounds. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/husband would pyramid his argument which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:

The wife claimed interim maintenance which was only worsening the situation as the husband even though was not at fault, was made to pay a huge sum of Rs. 1,500/- as maintenance per month. He would also not able to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- towards litigation expenses. This would certainly pave the way for the wife to protract the proceedings, whereas the husband is maintaining his three children and they are all with him only.

There is nothing to indicate that the husband was earning sufficient income.

The point for consideration is as to whether there is perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Lower Court.

The trite proposition of law is that pending matrimonial proceedings, the wife who is unable to maintain herself, is entitled to get interim maintenance which can be awarded by the Court concerned. While awarding so, the income of the husband is also required to be taken note of. In this case, the husband has not produced any clinching evidence to establish his monthly income. Maintenance seeker cannot be driven from pillar to post in search of evidence to prove the income of her husband. As such, in this case, the amount awarded by the Lower Court at Rs. 1,500/- per month, per day amount would amount to awarding Rs. 50/- as maintenance, which cannot be labelled as excessive. Awarding a sum of Rs. 4,000/- (Four Thousand) towards litigation expenses also cannot be termed as untenable in view of the present day cost of litigation. As such, I find no perversity or illegality in the order of the Lower Court. However, a direction has to be issued by this Court relating to disposal of the case at the earliest point of time. Wherefore, while dismissing this Civil Revision Petition, I would like to direct the Lower Court to dispose of the matter within a period three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.