Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1772 (MAD)

Joseph Dominic Britto v. Sampoorna Mary @ Philo

2004-12-23

N.KANNADASAN

body2004
Judgment :- The above Revision Petition is filed against the order of ordering interim maintenance as well as litigation expenses to the respondent/wife. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the wife/respondent has already filed an application before the Court at Mumbai under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. wherein the claim of maintenance to the wife/respondent was not granted but a direction was issued to pay maintenance to the minor son. It is also contended that considering the fact that the petitioner is getting a meagre amount by way of terminal amount, the interim maintenance passed by the Family Court is highly exorbitant. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that all the way the respondent has to travel from Mumbai to Chennai to appear in the proceedings initiated by the husband/petitioner pending before the Family Court at Chennai and as such there is no illegality in ordering the litigation expenses. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the rejection of the earlier claim made by the respondent under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. is not a bar to file an application for the grant of interim maintenance in the proceedings initiated by the husband/petitioner. 3. I have appreciated the rival claims of both the learned counsel. 4. The Family Court has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.600/- towards maintenance to the respondent as well Rs.3000/- towards litigation expenses reasonably. The Family Court has rightly passed the said order in view of the fact that the petitioner had not furnished the necessary details with regard to the terminal benefits of the petitioner. Further, the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising of J.S.VERMA, C.J., AND I.S.ISRANI, J in Virendra Kumar v. Smt. Santhoshi Devi (AIR 1988 RAJASTHAN 127) has held that a decision rendered in Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. is not a bar in deciding an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 5. In the light of the principles settled in the said Division Bench, I am of the view that the petition filed by the respondent/wife is maintainable in law. 5. In the light of the principles settled in the said Division Bench, I am of the view that the petition filed by the respondent/wife is maintainable in law. If it is construed that the respondent/wife is entitled to file a petition seeking interim maintenance inspite of the fact that she has suffered an order under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.c., there is no other materials available on record to hold that the direction given by the Family court with regard to the interim maintenance of Rs.600/- per month and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses is excessive. 6. Hence, I am of the opinion that the order of the Family Court does not call for interference of this Court. The Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.