Judgment : 1. This revision has been preferred under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order of the learned 2nd Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai, dated 9.5.2001 passed in I.A. No.506 of 1997 in O.P. No.632 of 1996. 2. Heard Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel for Mr.R.Srinivasan, appearing for the petitioner and Ms.Sheela Jayaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. With the consent of counsel for either side, the revision itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The revision petitioner is the husband and the respondent is his wife. The petitioner and the respondent got married on 2.5.85 at Madras. During the said marital life, they have begotten two daughters, namely, Minor Niraja and Minor Sahana respectively aged 9 and 7 years. 4. The husband instituted O.P. No.632 of 1996 against the wife for dissolution of marriage on the allegation that the wife was living in adultery, besides on the ground of cruelty. We are not concerned with the merits of the said divorce petition or the defence raised in the original petition. 5. During the pendency of the said original petition, the wife moved I.A. No.506 of 1997 under Section 24 and 26 of The Hindu Marriage Act for a direction to pay maintenance for herself and the two minor daughters and for their educational expenses, litigation expenses and travel and accommodation expenses. According to the wife, the husband is well placed in life, that he is a partner in VVD & Sons and various other establishments and his monthly income is not less than Rs.2 lakhs. According to the husband, the wife is having her own source of income of not less than Rs.1.30 lakhs every year and, therefore, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. 6. In the said application, the Court below framed the following two points for consideration :- "i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim interim maintenance against the respondent for herself and children and if so, what is the quantum ? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim litigation expenses as claimed under the petition and whether the petitioner is entitled to receive travel and accommodation expenses as stated in the petition ?" 7. ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim litigation expenses as claimed under the petition and whether the petitioner is entitled to receive travel and accommodation expenses as stated in the petition ?" 7. The family court by fair and decretal order dated 9.5.2001 directed payment of Rs.20,000 to the wife and two minor daughters from 5.9.96, the date of the petition with a direction to deduct expenses incurred by the husband for the education of the daughters, to pay Rs. 10,000 towards litigation expenses and Rs.50,000 towards travel and accommodation expenses. Challenging the said finding and the directions issued, the present revision has been filed by the husband under Article 227 of The Constitution. 8. According to the husband, the conclusion of the Family Court is erroneous in law and vitiated by wrongful exercise of jurisdiction, besides resulted in manifest injustice. It is further contended that disregarding the materials and evidence, the Family Court awarded huge sum towards maintenance, while the wife herself is an income tax assessee and huge investments and deposits and shares stands in her name apart from herself being a trustee in a private trust. It is contended that the Family Court has surmised and dwelled in conjectures. It is further contended that the family court had failed to advert and consider the material documents produced by the husband to show that the wife is well placed, she is an income tax assessee and she has sufficient income of her own to maintain herself. It was also contended that though an additional affidavit has been filed and documents have been produced, the same had neither been adverted to nor had been taken into consideration by the Family Court Judge. 9. Per contra, Ms.Sheela Jayaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that no interference is called for with the order passed by the family court awarding maintenance and directing payment towards travelling expenses, litigation expenses, etc. 10. Before taking up the facts of the case, it may be proper to refer to the pronouncements of the Apex Court, where the Apex Court had indicated the factors to be taken into consideration by Courts for fixing maintenance. 11. In Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, 1997 (7) SCC 7 , the Apex Court held thus :- "No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. 11. In Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, 1997 (7) SCC 7 , the Apex Court held thus :- "No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has, in the very nature of things, to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Some scope for leverage can, however, be always there. The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate. " 12. In Mangat Mal v. Punni Devi, 1995 (6) SCC 88 , though it is a case which arises under Section 14 of The Hindu Succession Act as to what would be the reasonable amount of maintenance, the Apex Court held thus : 13. Maintenance, as we see it, necessarily must encompass a provision for residence. Maintenance is given so that the lady can live in the manner, more or less, to which she was accustomed. The concept of maintenance must, therefore, include provision for food and clothing and the like and take into account the basic need of a roof over the head. Provision for residence may be made either by giving a lump sum in money, or property in lieu thereof. It may also be made by providing, for the course of the lady's life, a residence and money for other necessary expenditure." In the light of the above pronouncement, we have to examine whether the quantum of maintenance already awarded by the family court is just and reasonable or whether it is liable to be interfered in this revision. 14. This being a revision under Article 227 of The Constitution, this Court has to exercise powers of judicial review and it is definitely not an Appellate Court nor it could be interfered as if this is an appellate court. 14. This being a revision under Article 227 of The Constitution, this Court has to exercise powers of judicial review and it is definitely not an Appellate Court nor it could be interfered as if this is an appellate court. The power of judicial review under Article 227 is limited. 15. In Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (p) Ltd, 2001 (8) SCC 97 , the Apex Court, while examining the scope and ambit of Article 227, held thus :- "6) The exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to." 16. In Achutananda Baidya v. Prafullya Kumar Gayen, 1997 (2) CTC 333 : 1997 (5) SCC 76 the Apex Court held thus :- "10. The power of superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is not confined to administrative superintendence only but such power includes within its sweep the power of judicial review. The power and duty of the High Court under Article 227 is essentially to ensure that the courts and tribunals, inferior to High Court, have done what they were required to do. The power and duty of the High Court under Article 227 is essentially to ensure that the courts and tribunals, inferior to High Court, have done what they were required to do. Law is well settled by various decisions of this Court that the High Court can interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution in cases of erroneous assumption or acting beyond its jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law, arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion, a patent error in procedure, arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material, or resulting in manifest injustice. As regards finding of fact of the inferior court, the High Court should not quash the judgment of the subordinate court merely on the ground that its finding of fact was erroneous but it will be open to the High Court in exercise of the powers under Article 227 to interfere with the finding of fact if the subordinate court came to the conclusion without any evidence or upon manifest misreading of the evidence thereby indulging in improper exercise of jurisdiction or if its conclusions are perverse." 17. In Punjab National Bank v. O.C.Krishnan, 2001 (3) CTC 555 : 2001 (6) SCC 569 , the Apex Court held that provisions of Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions, the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has not been expressly ousted, yet when there is an alternate remedy, the High Court shall refrain from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. 18. In the present case, before taking up the facts for consideration, it is noticed by the Court that the respondent/wife preferred a revision, C.R.P. No.1913 of 2001 claiming for enhanced maintenance. F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J., by order dated 24.7.2001, at the stage of admission, confirmed the order passed by the family court and held that there is no scope for increase and that the wife is not entitled for further sum than what has been awarded under various heads by the Family Court. F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J., by order dated 24.7.2001, at the stage of admission, confirmed the order passed by the family court and held that there is no scope for increase and that the wife is not entitled for further sum than what has been awarded under various heads by the Family Court. The counsel for the respondent, who has preferred the revision has conveniently omitted to bring this to the notice of this Court at the hearing though the revision was taken up for hearing on few occasions and the counsel on either side were just representing that they are negotiating for a one time settlement. Be that so, we have to consider the merits of the present revision petition preferred by the husband, as ultimately it was reported that no settlement has been arrived at. 19. The wife claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000 towards interim maintenance for herself and for the two minor daughters, besides Rs.25,000 towards litigation expenses and Rs.50,000 towards travel and accommodation expenses. According to the wife she has no independent source of income, that she is entirely dependent upon her parents for herself and for her children's expenses, that her husband and other members of his family are very rich, they have factories and several latest cars and palatial houses fitted with all amenities, they have many servants at their disposal, that her husband is a partner and Director in several firms and companies in the names of VVD & Sons, etc., that the firm spent huge amount even on daily advertisements in Doordarshan prime time slots, that her husband is a member of number of prestigious clubs at Madras and Kodaikanal, that her husband is an income tax and wealth tax assessee, that his income will be not less than Rs.2 lakhs per month and in addition he has landed properties from which he gets substantial rental and other income. 20. The husband filed a counter wherein he has stated that he is not a partner in VVD & Sons, that he worked for VVD Group of Companies in which he is interested and draw a monthly salary, besides certain perks, membership in certain clubs and a car are facilities provided by the company to fulfill his official duties. The expenses towards the same are borne by the company. The expenses towards the same are borne by the company. It is claimed that the husband's income is Rs.6,000 only as he had declared a total income of Rs. 56,076 and his wealth tax assessment would disclose a value of his properties at Rs. 1,73,098. 21. It is contended that the wife is an income tax assessee and copy of the income tax assessment proceedings would show that she had declared an income of Rs. 1.30 lakhs, besides wealth tax assessment of Rs.7 lakhs. It is claimed that the husband has paid a sum of Rs.40,000 towards the annual school fees for the children. The claim of the wife is exhorbitant and unreasonable. The mother is bound to maintain the children. She has her own income and wealth. The husband has filed his income tax return. 22. The husband filed an additional affidavit alleging that the wife has one-fourth share in the business income of Rajendra Family Trust, besides she receives interest from seven establishments and also owns agricultural lands where she gets regular income. It is also stated that the wife is holding shares in thirteen companies, besides owning immovable properties at Kodaikanal. It is stated that the wife has sufficient income of her own. 23. The wife filed an additional counter affidavit stating that the family trust referred to by her husband was created by her father during 1982, her father has been allotting a portion of his income to his children and that the beneficiaries would be entitled to the monies only after the life time of their father and the said investment is not available. It is stated that the wife is not a partner nor she had invested any money in the eight companies or establishment referred to by the husband, besides she has stated that she is not aware of the investments or deposits. 24. The wife has also asserted that she is not owning any agricultural lands, much less, yielding income. The wife has stated that she is not aware of the income tax returns filed or the details and it is only the husband, who had maintained the same and she is not aware of what assets or investment, which stands in her name. According to the wife, her financial condition being that she depends on her father, and the husband has the moral and legal obligation to maintain her. According to the wife, her financial condition being that she depends on her father, and the husband has the moral and legal obligation to maintain her. It is stated that the fees for the school for the two daughters amounting to Rs.20,000 has not been paid by the husband and the children were due to be thrown out of the school. The wife has asserted that she is not able to maintain herself and the children and, therefore, a direction should be issued. 25. Along with the additional affidavit, the husband filed copy of summary of income tax return in Form-2 for the assessment year 1995-96, which would show that the income from salary was Rs.51,000, income from other sources has been shown as Rs.66,703 besides business income also has been shown. 26. On the said materials, the family court rendered a finding that the income of the husband is at Rs.1 lakh per month. On a consideration of the case and counter case and the very fact that the husband belong to a leading industrialist group in this State, there is no reason at all for this Court to disagree with the finding of the family court. There is some material, definitely acceptable material to hold that the husband's monthly income is at the order of Rs.1 lakh per month. 27. The very averments set out in the counter affidavit filed by the husband speak for themselves and it is not open to the husband to contend that his income is only few thousand rupees per month. The fact that the husband is owning number of cars, a palatial houses engaging number of servants and he is a member of a number of prestigious clubs at Madras, Kodaikanal and other places are not in dispute. Unless the husband has an income of not less than a lakh of rupees, it will not be possible for him to maintain his social status as revealed in the counter. 28. As regards the income of the wife, there is no acceptable material to show that she has separate income of her own. It may be that during the time when the wife was living with her husband, certain returns were filed by the husband or investments have been made in her name, but she is not in custody of the same nor she is deriving any income from such investments. It may be that during the time when the wife was living with her husband, certain returns were filed by the husband or investments have been made in her name, but she is not in custody of the same nor she is deriving any income from such investments. So also there is no material before the Court below to conclude that the wife has other investments or income from her parents. 29. It is true that she is one of the beneficiaries under a trust, but according to her assertion, she is not getting any income as the income of the trust properties have to be shared only after the life time of her father. There is no acceptable evidence to show that the wife has got separate or independent income and the husband has miserably failed to establish the same. 30. The wife is now dependent on her parents and she resides at Madurai and she has to come down to Madras to attend the hearing. Concedingly, the two sides, namely, the side of the husband and the wife are industrialists with status and owning substantial assets in the State. Therefore, their financial and social states are not in dispute and the wife requires a reasonable amount of compensation for herself and her daughters. It cannot be disputed that the husband and wife were leading a comfortable life owning number of vehicles, resorts in Kodaikanal, visiting place to place. 31. Taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances, the family background, the facilities, which they have been enjoying, as a minimum, the wife definitely requires Rs. 10,000 per month. Without that she cannot have the minimum facilities. So also the two daughters and each of them require atleast Rs.5,000 per month towards their boarding and lodging expenses. The two minor girls are studying in a popular and most sought after convent at the Hill Station, which is a famous convent where persons with certain social background alone could afford to admit their children. Thus in any view of the matter, the award of maintenance of Rs.20,000 per month by the family court, though it had not written a lengthy order is liable not liable to be interfered in this revision. 32. Thus in any view of the matter, the award of maintenance of Rs.20,000 per month by the family court, though it had not written a lengthy order is liable not liable to be interfered in this revision. 32. As regards litigation expenses as well as travelling and accommodation expenses also, this Court holds that they are not liable to be interfered as admittedly the family members are in the habit of travelling by car or by first class rail travel. The wife alone cannot come, she must have an assistant and she must have a suitable accommodation for the day when she has to attend the court at Madras. Therefore, the quantum of amount ordered to be paid towards travelling expenses and accommodation expenses cannot be held to be excessive. 33. Though it is claimed by the husband that he has been meeting the educational expenses of his daughters, no material at all has been placed by the husband to substantiate the same. If the husband had incurred and remitted any money towards school or hostel fees, he would definitely have produced receipts issued by the convent, where the two daughters are studying. Even for the daughters also, they require a convenient passage from Madurai to the convent at Ooty where they are studying. 34. The litigation expenses awarded by the court below is very reasonable and it cannot be considered to be excessive or arbitrary. 35. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the family court had not taken note of the documents filed by the husband. It is seen from the order of the family court, it has taken note of the documents filed by the husband. It is also to be pointed out neither parties have examined themselves. The family court had elicited information from either of the parties and had taken the same into consideration. Therefore the order of the family court in no way suffers with illegality nor it is liable to be interfered. 36. This is not a fit case where this Court would be justified in interfering with the order passed by the family court, while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 227. Therefore the order of the family court in no way suffers with illegality nor it is liable to be interfered. 36. This is not a fit case where this Court would be justified in interfering with the order passed by the family court, while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 227. While applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above two pronouncements, this court holds that the award of maintenance for the wife and two daughters is definitely not excessive not it is liable to be interfered. So also with respect to the quantum of travelling and accommodation and litigation expenses ordered. 37. In the circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.