Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 324 (MAD)

K. P. Sankarayanarayanan v. Sarojini

2003-02-28

K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN

body2003
ORDER: The revision petition is filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, wherein the order of the Family Court, Coimbatore, made in I.A. No.35 of 2002 in H.M.O.P. No.30 of 2002 passed under Sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been assailed by the petitioner/ husband pending H.M.O.P. filed by the respondent wife. 2. A mere perusal of the order impugned would show that the order has to be set aside for the simple reason that in a casual manner, it has been passed by the Family Court. Even for passing an order in an interlocutory application under Sec.24 there are are procedure to be followed, which the trial Court has given a go-by and the order has been passed under a rule of thumb, which practice has to be deprecated. Now on merits, the respondent herein filed an application claiming a sum of Rs.5,000 as interim alimony and a sum of Rs.3,000 as litigation expenses. Except the averment made in the application, there is no iota of evidence to prove the income of the petitioner/ husband. The petitioner/ husband has also not made out his case of inability by producing any materials before the Court apart from simply representing that he is only earning Rs.4,000 out of which he spends Rs.3,000 towards his medical expenses. 3. Considering the status of the petitioner and also the age of the petitioner and respondent, who are already senior citizens, I am of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to award compensation of Rs.1,500 as pendente lite maintenance and a sum of Rs.2,000 for litigation expenses. 4. Hence the order of the trial Court granting a sum of Rs.5,000 and Rs.2,000 as monthly pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses respectively is set aside and a sum of Rs.1,500 and Rs.2,000 are ordered towards interim monthly maintenance and litigation expenses respectively. 5. As already stated both the husband and wife are senior citizens and they are in the latter part of their life. Hence, in order to have place of mind and a happy living atleast in their old age, the Family Court is hereby directed to dispose of the H.M.O.P. as expeditiously as possible i.e., before 31st July, 2003 considering the age of the petitioner and the respondent. 6. With the modification, the revision is disposed of. Consequently, the connected C.M.P. is closed. No costs.