Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3518 (MAD)

M. Anbuselvan v. N. Kumutham

2015-10-28

P.DEVADASS

body2015
ORDER As only a short point is involved, we shall dispose of this Revision today at the admission stage itself. 2. The revision petitioner married the respondent. Difference of opinion arose between them. Now, they are living separately. The revision petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.12 of 2014 before the learned Additional Sub Judge, Karur to divorce his wife. She filed I.A.No.260 of 2014 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking interim maintenance at Rs.20,000/-per month and also Rs.10,000/-towards litigation expenses. 3. The trial Court granted her Rs.2,500/-per month and a lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. 4. Aggrieved, the husband has directed this Revision. 5. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner is a poor man, jobless. He cannot be directed to pay such an huge amount. Rs.10,000/-towards litigation expenses is very high. These aspects were overlooked by the trial Court. In the facts and circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. 6. I have anxiously considered the said submissions and perused the materials on record and also the impugned order. 7. On and after, a man marries a woman, a legal obligation to maintain his wife arises. It is a sacred duty. It cannot be avoided. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 contains provisions for matrimonial reliefs such as dissolution of marriage (divorce), restitution of conjugal rights and judicial separation. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 enables both the spouses to seek maintenance by way of interim measure when they are unable to maintain themselves. This relief will be in force till the disposal of the main case. If divorce is granted, then it will be permanent alimony. That is why it is called 'pendete lite maintenance'. 8. There is also provision for obtaining amount to meet the 'litigation expenses'. It includes not only lawyer's fees, but also to and fro expenses of the spouse to attend the Court and to meet other incidental expenses in connection with the conducting of the matrimonial proceedings. 9. That is why it is called 'pendete lite maintenance'. 8. There is also provision for obtaining amount to meet the 'litigation expenses'. It includes not only lawyer's fees, but also to and fro expenses of the spouse to attend the Court and to meet other incidental expenses in connection with the conducting of the matrimonial proceedings. 9. In considering grant of maintenance and litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Court has to consider not the main grounds raised in the H.M.O.P., but it must consider the financial capacity of the husband, so also the financial condition of the wife whether she is unable to maintain herself. But while doing so, it should not consider the financial position of the father-in-law of the husband because after marriage, the duty of the father to maintain his daughter ceases. In his place, the husband comes. 10. Now, in this case, it is the stand of the husband that he is jobless. If such an argument is accepted, then every husband will escape. Easily avoid their moral and legal obligation to his wife. Now, for the purpose of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in a suit for maintenance, the financial capacity of an husband is to be considered. 'His ability to earn' is also a relevant factor. If he is an 'able bodied', who has sufficient physical capacity to earn or engage himself in a job, itself will be considered as sufficient financial capacity. 11. Now, in this case, the revision petitioner belongs to Chinnatharaburam, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District. It is a rural area. There are plenty of opportunity to work as an agriculture coolie or labourer etc. There is no allegation that the revision petitioner is sick or infirm. He is able bodied. So we can easily conclude that he has got ability to earn, capacity to earn. He has the capacity to discharge his obligation to provide maintenance to his wife. 12. It is the contention of the revision petitioner both before the trial Court and before this Court that the respondent/wife is employed. She is having earning capacity. Except such an allegation in the counter, there is no concrete material to show that she is employed. 13. The trial Court has granted Rs.10,000/-towards litigation expenses. 12. It is the contention of the revision petitioner both before the trial Court and before this Court that the respondent/wife is employed. She is having earning capacity. Except such an allegation in the counter, there is no concrete material to show that she is employed. 13. The trial Court has granted Rs.10,000/-towards litigation expenses. Now, because of the high inflation, the bus fare is increased, lawyers have also increased their fees and the case is being conducted before the Sub Court. So Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses is not very high. 14. The trial Court granted her Rs.2,500/-per month. It is pertinent to note that this is towards expenses relating to food, clothing, shelter, nourishment and cosmetics. Now, because of the high inflation, even the cost of the basic necessities of life are on the higher side. Prices falling down is a distant dream of everyone. Therefore, Rs.2,500/-per month is not excessive. 15. Thus, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the trial Court. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that a direction may be issued to dispose of the main H.M.O.P itself. 16. In view of the foregoings, this Civil Revision Petition fails and it is dismissed. The learned Additional Sub Judge, Karur is directed to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.12 of 2014 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.