ORDER The brief history of the case are as follows:- The respondents herein i.e, wife and daughter of the revision petitioner have filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.28 of 2009, on the file of Family Court, Coimbatore, stating that the revision petitioner married the first respondent herein on 17.02.2002, as per Hindu Customs and Rites. At the time of marriage, her parents provided 60 sovereigns of gold jewelleries besides giving household articles. After the marriage, both led their marital life at Coimbatore. Out of wedlock, the first respondent gave birth to a female child i.e., the second respondent herein, on 22.03.2003, at Coimbatore. 2. The first respondent herein/wife further stated that the revision petitioner had informed that he is an engineering graduate and employed at Penta Soft at Chennai, and drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, the petitioners family members had demanded 80 sovereigns of gold jewelleries and cash of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- besides household articles. The same was provided. After the marriage, the revision petitioner had not attended to his duty, as an engineer in Penta Soft Ltd., During the first week of April 2002, she was shocked to note that her husband asked her to give the entire jewels provided to her at the time of marriage, as he wanted to pledge the same for his urgent financial commitments and provide groceries to the house, and then only, she came to know that her husband is unemployed and he had given false information before marriage. 3. The first respondent herein/wife further stated that her husband used to consume alcohol. Further, all the household articles had been sold by her husband, one by one. As such, the respondent was subjected to severe mental and physical cruelty at the hand of her husband and her in-laws. The first respondent further stated that her in-laws had not provided proper food to her and that they were not happy, when she became pregnant. The respondent had also insisted on her husband to get a job away from Erode and have a separate way of living. subsequently, her husband got a job at Bangalore and joined duty. During that relevant period, her in-laws used abusive language against her and treated her like a servant. The respondent tolerated all those cruelties. Now, her husband's job has been made permanent and he is earning Rs.30,000/- per month. 4. subsequently, her husband got a job at Bangalore and joined duty. During that relevant period, her in-laws used abusive language against her and treated her like a servant. The respondent tolerated all those cruelties. Now, her husband's job has been made permanent and he is earning Rs.30,000/- per month. 4. The first respondent / wife further stated that she gave birth to a female child for which her in-laws had demanded 10 sovereigns of gold jewelleries as seethanas to the new born baby. Thereafter, her husband set up a family at Bangalore and she joined him along with her baby. Her husband used to conduct parties in the said house, along with his parents, and alcohol was taken at such parties. In the meantime, her husband got promotion and he was asked to leave Bangalore for USA and Korea on project work and his salary was increased to approximately about Rs.4,00,000/- per annum. Her husband's salary had been extracted by his parents. Further, her husband used to come home at midnight and he spent more time in the bad company of his friends. The first respondent further stated that she had informed about her husband's bad activities to his parents. Subsequently her husband was asked to go on a project to Korea with his family for a period of three months. As such, both of them went to Seoul, Korea on 13.05.2006 and stayed there for a period of three months, wherein her husband enjoyed his life with liquor and continued his bad company. The first respondent herein and her daughter faced many difficulties while they were staying in Korea. 5. The respondent further stated that her husband had purchased a plot at Coimbatore and constructed a building after obtaining loan from LIC. For obtaining the loan, his sister stood as guarantor and as such, she is also claiming ownership over the property. Again her husband was asked to go to USA for a project. When her husband returned from USA to Bangalore, he suffered from stomach pain and giddiness Hence, she took him to Amarjothi Medical Centre, Bangalore, wherein medical test was conducted and he was diagnosed with "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome". The wife further stated that she and her daughter, who is aged 4 years have separated from her husband since her husband is infected with "AIDS" and there cannot be any compatibility of marriage in future. The wife further stated that she and her daughter, who is aged 4 years have separated from her husband since her husband is infected with "AIDS" and there cannot be any compatibility of marriage in future. Hence, the petitioner/wife has prayed for grant of monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- to her and Rs.10,000/- as monthly maintenance to her daughter. 6. The revision petitioner / husband had filed a counter statement and resisted the maintenance case. It was submitted that his wife is a M.Phil graduate and also employed. Besides this, she gets a rental income through her father's property. The petitioner admitted the marriage and the child birth. The petitioner further stated that he never demanded any dowry from her and had never sold her belongings i.e, gold ornaments to enable him to procure alcohol. Further, his wife did not stay at the matrimonial home, erode, for even one week. The other contentions raised by his wife was also denied. The petitioner further stated that he had provided good accommodation, to his wife and child, whenever they stayed together. Out of his earnings, he has to pay premium for LIC policy and to repay money borrowed from the bank. The petitioner denied that he has any H.I.V. symptoms, as alleged by his wife. The petitioner further stated that his nett salary is Rs.57,100/- out of which Rs.55,000/- was spent to maintain himself. Therefore, the revision petitioner has prayed to dismiss the said petition. 7. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the documents marked by them, the learned Family Court judge, allowed the divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.691 of 2007, and partly allowed the maintenance claim in M.C.No.28 of 2009, and directed the revision petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as monthly maintenance to the wife and Rs.10,000/- as monthly maintenance to the minor daughter. 8. Against the said order, the revision petitioner has filed the above revision and challenged the maintenance order in M.C.No.28 of 2009. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has raised the grounds in the revision that the learned Judge directed the revision petitioner to pay a total maintenance amount of a sum of Rs.30,000/- which is erroneous. Further, the petitioner suffers from secondary depression and hence, he is undergoing treatment. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has raised the grounds in the revision that the learned Judge directed the revision petitioner to pay a total maintenance amount of a sum of Rs.30,000/- which is erroneous. Further, the petitioner suffers from secondary depression and hence, he is undergoing treatment. Further, the petitioner needs a sum of Rs.55,000/- for his medical treatment every month. The first respondent is employed at Niswin Enterprises, Coimbatore and getting a monthly salary of Rs.30,000/-. 10. On the side of the respondent also no one had appeared. Hence, this Court is constrained to pass final order on the basis of available records. 11. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and on perusing the impugned order of the trial Court, this Court is of the view that the maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- granted to the first petitioner/wife is on the higher side since the revision petitioner had disclosed that his salary was Rs.57,100/- in his counter statement. Therefore, this Court reduces the monthly maintenance payable to the first respondent/wife from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.10,000/- as it is found to be appropriate. However, the maintenance amount granted to the second respondent/minor daughter is unaltered, as it is found to be appropriate. Therefore, this Court directs the revision petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to each of the first and second respondents herein from the date of filing the maintenance petition. This Court further directs the revision petitioner to pay the arrears of maintenance amount as per this Court's finding within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by way of deposit before the trial Court or demand draft in favour of the first respondent herein. Thereafter, the revision petitioner shall pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- regularly to the respondents on or before 5th of every succeeding English calendar month.