Sri C.H. Vivekananda vs Smt. N. Sheela

Ajit J. Gunjal, J.—Petitioner-husband is before this Court questioning the order passed by the learned family Judge awarding a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as interim maintenance to the respondent-wife and minor child. In addition to that, the family Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses.

Mr. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband submits that the awarding of interim maintenance at the rate as granted is excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable and not commensurate with the income of the petitioner-husband. He further submits that the petitioner has offered onetime permanent alimony of Rs. 5,00,000/-. But however, the wife has not accepted the same.

I have perused the impugned order. The respondent wife has filed a petition u/s 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The application would indicate that for the present, she is under the care and custody of her parents and they are unable to meet the expenses of the child as well as herself. According to her, the petitioner-husband owns about 25 acres of land at Chikkaballapur and is raising commercial crops. The petitioner-husband enters appearance and files objections. He admits the relationship but however denies all other allegations regarding income. Learned family Judge, having regard to the totality of circumstances, was of the view that the application of the respondent-wife cannot be granted in its entirety but however has awarded the same as indicted above.

Having regard to the fact that to keep the body and soul together, a minimum amount is required, I am of the view that a sum of Rs. 2500/- as interim maintenance to the wile and minor child cannot be said to be excessive, arbitrary or unreasonable having regard to the cost of living and the price index. The litigation expenses of Rs. 3,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive, as the litigation expenses are indeed quite expensive.

Having given my anxious consideration, the question of interference does not arise. Petition rejected. The rejection of this petition will not come in the way of the petitioner-husband seeking a final settlement.