R. Padmanaban vs G. Lalitha

G. Rajasuria, J.—Animadverting upon the order dated 28.04.2008 passed by the learned I Additional Family Judge I/C, Chennai, in I.A.

No. 971 of 2007 in O.P. No. 111 of 2007, this civil revision petition is focussed.

The facts giving rise to filing of this revision as stood exposited from the records succinctly and precisely be set out thus:

The revision petitioner/husband herein preferred O.P. No. 111 of 2007 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. During the pendency of the said O.P.,

I.A. No. 971 of 2007 was filed by the wife as against the husband seeking maintenance for herself and for the child. The Family Court awarded

interim maintenance u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- was awarded in favour of the wife and Rs. 1,000/- in favour of the

minor child, in total a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as interim maintenance. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Family Court,

this revision has been filed by the petitioner on various grounds.

Despite printing the name of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, neither the counsel nor the petitioner appeared.

The learned Counsel for the respondent appeared and made his submission to the effect that the Family Court after taking into consideration the

fact that the revision petitioner is bound to pay interim maintenance to the wife and children who have no source of income to maintain themselves,

awarded such maintenance and no interference with the order is required.

Perused the impugned order as well as the records available.

The Family Court in paragraph 7 of its judgment clearly gave a finding that the revision petitioner herein had not produced his salary certificate to

prove his contention that he was getting only a sum of Rs. 3,500/- per month, but on the other hand, the wife in her affidavit clearly and

categorically stated that the revision petitioner is earning a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month and in addition to that, he is also getting a sum of Rs.

3,000/- per month as rental income. As such, considering the pro et contra, the Family Court awarded only a moderate interim maintenance of Rs.

2,000/- in favour of the wife and Rs. 1,000/- in favour of the minor child of the revision petitioner.

A wife, is entitled to live in commensurate with the status of her husband. Here, admittedly the revision petitioner is working in C and F Rockey

Marketing Cehnnai (P) Ltd., as Area Incharge and such a person''s wife is entitled to lead a reasonably comfortable life. Without a sum of Rs.

2,000/- per month, a lady cannot keep her body and soul together and as such, by no stretch of imagination, awarding Rs. 2,000/- in favour of a

lady as maintenance be described as excessive. Similarly awarding a sum of Rs. 1,000/- in favour of the minor child can also never be said to be

excessive as it is obvious and no more elaboration in this is required. Accordingly, I see no merit in this revision petition and it is dismissed. No

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

The learned Counsel for the respondent would make an extempore submission to the effect that so far only a meagre part of the arrears, was

paid as interim maintenance by the revision petitioner herein and still the arrears are huge. At this juncture, I would like to direct the Family Court

to act as per the well settled proposition of law that if the maintenance is not paid as directed, it can be enforced by passing appropriate directions

and orders in the manner known to law.