Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 20.01.2012 passed by the III Additional Family Court, Chennai, in I.A. No: 2589 of 2009 in O.P. No: 1179 of 2009, granting interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition in addition to delivery expenses of Rs. 10,000/-and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. With regard to payment of arrears of maintenance, four months time was granted. 2. Revision petitioner is the husband who filed the F.C.O.P. No: 1179 of 2009 to declare that the marriage held on 31.10.2008 between him and the respondent as null and void. Pending the Original Petition, the respondent / wife filed an interlocutory application in I.A. No: 2589 of 2009 claiming a sum of Rs.15,000/-per month towards interim maintenance for herself and the child; Rs.50,000/-towards delivery expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses. 3. The trial Judge, after consideration of the materials placed before her, held that it is duty of the husband to give maintenance when the wife is living separately and considering the cost of living and other expenses to be met out for the livelihood fixed Rs. 4,000/- as interim maintenance from the date of filing of the petition and ordered that a sum of Rs.10,000/- be paid by the husband towards delivery expenses and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses was also directed to be paid. The learned trial Judge also granted four months time to the husband to pay the accumulated arrears. As against the same, the husband is before this Court in this Civil Revision Petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and perused the material documents made available on record. 5. Mr. V. Ramesh Vel learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner husband would contend that the learned trial Judge has not taken into consideration the material information about the mental illness of the respondent wife while passing an order granting interim maintenance. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the order granting interim maintenance is per se illegal as the prayer sought by the husband in the main O.P. is to declare the marriage as null and void on the ground that the respondent was suffering from mental illness and the free consent for the marriage was not there. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the order granting interim maintenance is per se illegal as the prayer sought by the husband in the main O.P. is to declare the marriage as null and void on the ground that the respondent was suffering from mental illness and the free consent for the marriage was not there. He would also consistently plead that the learned trial Judge ought to have considered the fact that an application in I.A No: 756 of 2011 for a direction to send the respondent / wife to a psychiatrist for examination and opinion is pending for more than one year and if such opinion is received after medical examination, the mental health of the respondent wife would be known. As the interim maintenance is ordered without verifying the mental illness of the wife, the same is illegal and is liable to be set aside. Finally, learned counsel would plead that by way of showing the bonafide, the revision petitioner may be permitted to deposit the maintenance amount so awarded in the Court instead of paying it to the respondent wife. 6. What are all the grounds raised by the petitioner in this revision and his counsel are all issues to be adjudicated while finally hearing the main O.P. The main plea of the petitioner about the mental illness of the respondent is a factor to be proved by him with appropriate evidence. In the present revision filed questioning the grant of interim maintenance, this Court cannot go into all those aspects. While granting the interim maintenance and other expenses, the Court below had weighed the situation and had taken into consideration the claim of the wife and the resistance of the husband in that petition. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 31.10.2008. Out of the wedlock a child was born on 20.07.2009. Though the husband claims that the wife had ran away from the matrimonial home and the counter claim of the wife is that she left for her parents house for delivery and that the husband neglected to maintain her thereafter, it is admitted fact that the wife and the child are living separately from the husband and therefore, the claim of the wife for interim maintenance is liable to be considered. 7. While considering such a claim, the Court below had taken into account the material facts. 7. While considering such a claim, the Court below had taken into account the material facts. Though the wife claims for a sum of Rs.15,000/-per month as interim maintenance on the footing that the husband's monthly income is Rs.60,000/-, the Court below found that she has not filed any proof of income and ordered only a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month as interim maintenance for the wife and the child. Similarly, though the wife claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards delivery expenses and Rs.15,000/-towards litigation expenses, the Court below had taken into consideration the hospital bill and pharmacy bill viz. Ex.P.1 to P.3 and ordered that a sum of Rs. 10,000/-towards delivery expenses and a sum of Rs.5,000/-be paid by the husband towards litigation expenses. Thus, the amounts awarded by the Court below cannot be said to be exorbitant. 8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned in this revision warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, finding no merit, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. There shall be no orders as to the costs. The revision petitioner has to comply with the order by paying the maintenance. However, to pay the accumulated arrears, the petitioner is granted two more months. The revision petitioner shall pay the accumulated arrears within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to add that the parties are at liberty to expediate the disposal of the main O.P.