Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2783 (MAD)

M. Mani @ Mani Rathinam v. M. Pushpa

2012-07-03

V.DHANAPALAN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 13.06.2011 granting interim maintenance in I.A. No: 222 of 2010 in F.C.O.P. No: 406 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court, Salem. 2. Petitioner is the husband who filed the F.C.O.P. for divorce on the ground of desertion. Pending the Original Petition, the wife filed an interlocutory application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses. The Family Court, on consideration of the case partly allowed the interlocutory application by directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/-per month as interim maintenance from 13.04.2010 till the disposal of F.C.O.P. No: 406 of 2009 and shall also pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. As against which this revision petition is filed. 3. Ms. D. Sathya learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the trial Court has not considered Ex.R.6 -Settlement Deed executed by the respondent herein in favour of her daughter which would clearly show that the respondent herein had rental income of her own and, therefore, the Family Court has not considered the source of income of the respondent while coming to the conclusion to order interim maintenance. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the material documents available on record. 5. An analysis of the case would reveal that the wife is facing divorce proceedings filed by the husband in F.C.O.P. No: 406 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court, Salem. Earlier, the husband filed F.C.O.P. No: 95 of 2008 for restitution of conjugal rights. As the wife did not respondent, that original petition was withdrawn and another origina petition for divorce was filed by the husband. Pending the divorce proceedings, the respondent / wife filed an interlocutory application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming a sum of Rs. 10,000/-per month as interim maintenance and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses. The claim of the revision petitioner is that the respondent / wife on her own left the matrimonial home and started living with her parents. Steps taken for reunion went in vein. 10,000/-per month as interim maintenance and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses. The claim of the revision petitioner is that the respondent / wife on her own left the matrimonial home and started living with her parents. Steps taken for reunion went in vein. Regarding his income, he claims that the land he owns at Yercaud is a barren land and only now he has developed coffee plantation by borrowing money from the Canara Bank on the recommendations of the Coffee Board. The plantations are yet to give yield and income and that he is indebted to the bank by a sum of Rs. 21 lakhs. The other allegations regarding his other income from agricultural lands at Gorimedy and from the residential houses are all denied. According to him, the respondent wife is a rich and affluent person with sufficient source of income and that she is an income tax assessee. She is supported by her daughter and son-in-law who are earning a huge sum of Rs.1,40,000/-per month. He had also further stated in the additional counter affidavit that the coffee estate at Yercaud is now his absolute property. He has inherited it from his father along with mother and sister and in turn he has to share the property with his son. The revision petitioner further states that some lands which he had held earlier were sold out and from and out of the sale proceeds he purchased a residential house in the name of the respondent / wife and that she is earning a sizeable income from renting out the said premises. She also earns a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from money lending business. 6. On the other hand, while resisting all the aforesaid claim of the revision petitioner that she is running money lending business, the respondent wife states that her jewels were given to the revision petitioner / husband for discharging his debts and in lieu of the same, the revision petitioner purchased the house in her name. It is also stated that she has settled that property in favour of her daughter as the revision petitioner refused to give the customary seer to the daughter during her marriage. 7. It is also stated that she has settled that property in favour of her daughter as the revision petitioner refused to give the customary seer to the daughter during her marriage. 7. In support of their respective claim about the income of the other, both the revision petitioner and the respondent had marked documents, namely, patta No: 40, Athiyur Village, Yercaud Taluk and the settlement deed dated 07.08.2008. While considering the rival claims of the parties as regards their respective income, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the revision petitioner is the absolute owner of the land in Athiyur Village, Yercaud taluk, and negatived his claim that he has only 1/6th share in the property. Similarly, the trial Court, derived the fact from the Settlement Deed dated 07.08.2008 that the respondent wife though has settled the property in her daughter's name, she has retained the right of enjoying the rental income from and out of the property for her life time. Thus, on consideration of the claim and counter claim of the petitioner and the respondent, the Trial Court came to the following conclusion at paragraph 16 of its order : "16. Whether the petitioner left the marital home voluntarily or she was prevented from entering the marital home are the fact in issue in the divorce proceedings which is pending disposal before this Court. Whether the reason for separation as stated by the petitioner is true or not, and whether it is a justifiable reason or not is to be tested during the trial of the main O.P. However, pending the main O.P. the petitioner cannot be deprived of interim maintenance since her income is not sufficient to maintain herself. " Thus holding that the respondent wife is entitled for interim maintenance pending the main O.P. the trial Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,500/-per month as interim maintenance from the date of the petition till the date of disposal of the main O.P. payable by the revision petitioner and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards litigation expenses. 8. The trial Court weighed many factors by taking into account all the material placed before it and came to a fair conclusion that the respondent wife is entitled only for a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month as interim maintenance even though her claim is for a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. 8. The trial Court weighed many factors by taking into account all the material placed before it and came to a fair conclusion that the respondent wife is entitled only for a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month as interim maintenance even though her claim is for a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. As regards the claim of a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses, the trial Court has ordered only a sum of Rs.5,000/-to be paid. Looking from any angle, this Court is of the opinion that the findings so arrived by the trial Court is based on consideration of every fact and circumstance and material consideration of the claim of both the parties. Therefore, the reasonings given by the trial Court in awarding such an amount as interim maintenance to the respondent wife cannot be interfered with by this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs.