ORDER : This civil revision petition arises against the order of the third Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai in I.A.No.6 of 2024 in OP No.1320 of 2023 dated 25.11.2024. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as husband and wife. 3. The details of the OP are not necessary for the purpose of this case. The relationship between the parties is admitted. They married each other on 24.10.2007. From the wedlock, two children were born. The children are in the custody of the father. Due to disputes and differences, the parties separated. 4. The husband initiated HMOP No.1320 of 2023 invoking Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The wife has filed her counter. Pleadings have been completed. On the direction of this Court, OP.No.1320 of 2023 was taken for trial. It was directed to be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 5. Pending the litigation, the wife filed an application seeking interim maintenance. According to her, she is not able to maintain herself. She pleaded that the husband, who is a medical doctor, is generating Rs.2.5 lakhs as rental income and another Rs.3 lakhs as professional income. She pleaded that the husband dines only in Five Star Hotels and in fine dine in restaurants. She urged he is accustomed to wearing branded clothes. She pointed out that her mother-in-law is a pensioner with an independent source of income. She pleaded that she is a law graduate and was working as lawyer in Chennai, generating a meagre income by stipend of Rs.15,000/- per month. Consequently, she requested the Court to grant interim maintenance of Rs.2 lakhs per month for herself and Rs.1 lakh towards litigation expenses. 6. Notice was ordered in the application. It was served on the husband. He filed a counter. He pleaded that the wife separated from him on account of her activities which he did not condone. He went into merits of the divorce petition pointing out that the petitioner had developed friendship with respondents 2 to 4 in O.P.No.1320 of 2023. He stated that his mother is a super senior citizen and requires to be maintained by him. He urged that the wife is equally qualified and is earning substantial income from her legal practice. He went into merits of the divorce petition pointing out that the petitioner had developed friendship with respondents 2 to 4 in O.P.No.1320 of 2023. He stated that his mother is a super senior citizen and requires to be maintained by him. He urged that the wife is equally qualified and is earning substantial income from her legal practice. He filed an additional counter pleading that the wife had earlier sought for interim maintenance in DVC No.95 of 2022 and that it had been dismissed by the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. He pleaded that the wife has suppressed the said order. 7. Both the parties filed their affidavit of assets and liabilities. The learned Judge took up the application for disposal. She came to a conclusion that the wife is entitled to a minimum amount of Rs.50,000/- p.m. to have a decent standard of living and to meet her basic needs. However, at the time of passing the order, she restricted this amount to Rs.25,000/- p.m. No amount was given towards litigation expenses. The learned Judge also directed that the maintenance amount should be paid from the date of filing of I.A.No.6 of 2024. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition at the instance of the wife. 8. When the matter came up for admission, Mrs.Sudarsana Sundar, learned counsel, took notice on behalf of Mr.E.Balamurugan, learned counsel for the caveator. 9. I heard Ms.S.P.Arthi for revision petitioner and Mrs.Sudarsana Sundar for the respondent. 10. Several contentions had been raised by both counsel. The submissions of Ms.Arthi are as follows: (i) The Court having come to the conclusion that the wife is entitled to an amount of Rs.50,000/- p.m. had granted only Rs.25,000/- p.m. (ii) The trial Court had not granted any amount towards litigation expenses. (iii) Ms.Arthi urged that the lifestyle that the husband leads is a very lavish one. He is having professional trainers and he is owning a mercedes benz vehicle. (iv) She points out that he has boosted the medical expenses as well as the expenses towards the children. (v) Insofar as her earning capacity is concerned, Ms.Arthi stated that the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry had debarred the petitioner from practicing as a lawyer and therefore, she is entirely dependent on her father and her brother. (iv) She points out that he has boosted the medical expenses as well as the expenses towards the children. (v) Insofar as her earning capacity is concerned, Ms.Arthi stated that the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry had debarred the petitioner from practicing as a lawyer and therefore, she is entirely dependent on her father and her brother. (vi) She urged that the wife is facing as many as 29 cases of which most of them are at the instance of friends / maid servants of the husband. Drawing my attention to the bank statements of the husband, she points out that the husband is sponsoring the litigation of her opponents against her. 11. Therefore, she pleads that the revision be allowed and a sum of Rs.2 lakhs be directed to be paid towards maintenance and a sum of Rs.1 lakh be ordered towards litigation expenses. 12. She states that in addition, she is also entitled to the other litigation expenses that she has to incur on account of the several “sponsored litigation” at the hands of the husband. 13. Per contra, Ms.Sudharsana Sunder argued that (i) the main O.P. had been filed in March 2023 whereas the wife had belatedly moved an application for maintenance only in April, 2024. (ii) She draws my attention to the order passed by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.Sivagnanam in D.Prabhu Thilak v. Shruthi Thilak & Others in CRP No.892 of 2024 to point out that this Court had already directed the trial Court to dispose of the proceedings expeditiously within the period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The matter being at an advance stage of trial, the idea of the wife is to drag on the proceedings. (iii) She points out that the wife is not living in penury as she is able to sustain herself in a very fine fashion. (iv) She points out that several deposits have been made in the bank accounts of the civil revision petitioner by one Settu, which amounts to a sum of Rs.9,95,000/- from 14.03.2023 to 27.02.2024. (iii) She points out that the wife is not living in penury as she is able to sustain herself in a very fine fashion. (iv) She points out that several deposits have been made in the bank accounts of the civil revision petitioner by one Settu, which amounts to a sum of Rs.9,95,000/- from 14.03.2023 to 27.02.2024. (v) She states that while the petitioner claimed Rs.1 lakh towards litigation expenses in the petition, while filing an affidavit of assets, it bloomed to Rs.1 lakh p.m. (vi) She further draws my attention to the affidavit of assets filed by the wife and states that the wife is earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. as stipend and this was taken into consideration by the learned Trial Judge while reducing the quantum of maintenance from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. (vii) She states that the husband has loans to service and without the assistance of the wife, he is taking care of the children, who are in his custody. (viii) She also points out to the dividends paid by the Tata AIG Insurance to the petitioner wife (ix) Finally, she states that the wife, though an income-tax assessee, had not produced the income tax returns for the past three assessment years. 14. In fine, her argument is that this is a vexatious petition meant not only to drag on the proceedings but also to harass the husband. 15. She adds that in compliance with the order passed by the trial Court, the entire amount had been deposited before the trial Court but the wife did not receive the amount. This shows that there is no necessity for the wife to claim maintenance. 16. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. 17. The parties have thrown every available weapon at each other excepting the kitchen sink. The wife has produced the bank accounts of the husband and the husband has produced the bank accounts of the wife also. The relationship between the parties is accepted. From 2007 till 2022, they lived together. They separated only in the year 2022. The husband has initiated divorce proceedings in the year 2023. He has also secured an order for expeditious disposal of the divorce proceedings. The relationship between the parties is accepted. From 2007 till 2022, they lived together. They separated only in the year 2022. The husband has initiated divorce proceedings in the year 2023. He has also secured an order for expeditious disposal of the divorce proceedings. The fact that this Court has directed the main OP to be disposed of at an earlier date does not mean that the trial Court should not consider an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 18. Though allegations touching upon the relationship that exists between the wife and some third parties to the marriage have been made, I do not think they are relevant for the purpose of dealing with a maintenance application. The Parliament, which had enacted the Criminal Procedure Code, had also enacted the Hindu Marriage Act. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, if the wife were to live in adultery, then she would not be entitled to maintenance. However, the bar which is found in the Criminal Procedure Code has not been incorporated in the Hindu Marriage Act. Hence, I am not inclined to go into those allegations. 19. For the purpose of invoking maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act, the party has to show that the husband or the wife does not have independent income sufficient to his or her support and the necessary expenses of the proceedings. If this aspect is pleaded, then irrespective of the merits of the claim, the Court will have to grant maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is to prevent a party from falling into vagrancy and to financially sustain her/him during the course of litigation. 20. I will now dispose of one of the points urged by the husband that earlier an application has been filed for maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act stood rejected. Maintenance is a liability which recurs month on month. The Court may come to a conclusion that a party is not entitled to a maintenance in a particular month but due to change in circumstances, the very same Court can come to a conclusion that the party is entitled to maintenance for a subsequent period. Maintenance, being an interim order, it is always susceptible to change and the plea of res judicata is not entertainable in such an application. 21. Maintenance, being an interim order, it is always susceptible to change and the plea of res judicata is not entertainable in such an application. 21. The Supreme Court in celebrated case of Rajnesh v. Neha, 2021 2 SCC 324 has settled that it is the duty of the husband to maintain the wife and children. In this case, the husband is taking care of the interest of the children. Therefore, his liability towards the wife alone has to be decided by me. As to what is the quantum of maintenance that should be ordered has also been decided by the Supreme Court in Dr . Rajiv Varghese v. Rose Chakkrammankkil Francis, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3367. The Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal that had been preferred from an order passed by this Court. The Family Court had fixed monthly maintenance of Rs.1,75,000/-, which was reduced to Rs.80,000/-, on an appeal to this Court. On a further appeal to the Supreme Court by the husband and wife, the Court held that the wife has to be maintained in the same status as she is accustomed too, while living in the matrimonial home along with the husband. After having reached that conclusion, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the Division Bench of this Court and restored the order passed by the Family Court. 22. Bearing these principles in mind, I approach the facts of the present case. It is not in dispute that the husband is earning a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- by virtue of being a consultant with M/s.Vinakaya Mission Medical College and Hospital. Though the details of income as filed in the affidavit of assets and liabilities show that he is employed with Shree Hospital, Salem, the amount that he receives from the said hospital has not been disclosed. His income from other sources is also shown to be Rs.1,45,000/- as monthly rental income. He has also disclosed a vehicle loan of Rs.52,610/-.He further points out that he is getting 50% share in Eleven Eleven Production Private Limited, 50% share in White Lotus Books Private Limited and 50% share in M/s.Thiruvadi Ventures Private Limited. Having disclosed all these source of income, the husband states that the net income that he receives in his hand is only Rs.17,47,500/-. While he receives this amount, he has shown monthly expenses as follows: Details Amount Rent Rs. Having disclosed all these source of income, the husband states that the net income that he receives in his hand is only Rs.17,47,500/-. While he receives this amount, he has shown monthly expenses as follows: Details Amount Rent Rs. 50,000/- House Hold Expenses Rs.1,25,000/- Medical Bills Rs. 30,000/- EB/Phone Bills Rs. 30,000/- Bank OD Interest Rs. 70,000/- Mortgage gold loan interest Rs. 45,000/- 23. He has also further pointed out that he is taking care of his aged mother, who is aged about 71 years old. I wonder with professional income of Rs.1,25,000/- and another Rs,1,45,000/-, which add up to around Rs.2,70,000/-, the respondent husband seems to have a capacity to spend Rs.3,92,000/- p.m. Obviously, there is some financial gap between the amount disclosed in the affidavit towards monthly income and the expenses that he had shown in the affidavit of the assets and liabilities. The purpose of filing of affidavit of assets and liabilities pursuant to the orders in Rajnesh v. Neha was to enable a Court to come to a conclusion on the quantum of maintenance. When the affidavit itself has been filed in a manner, which has a tendency to mislead the Court, much reliance cannot be placed upon the same. 24. Though the wife had pleaded that she is getting Rs.15,000/- p.m. as stipend from her senior, she has filed an additional affidavit during the course of proceedings pointing out that she suffered an order before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. Today, she is not in employment with her senior. This shows that the wife is not having income sufficient to maintain herself. Therefore, I necessarily have to conclude on the first issue that the husband is duty bound to maintain the wife. On this aspect, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Family Judge is confirmed. 25. I am unable to sustain the remaining portions of the order because the learned Trial Judge came to a conclusion that the wife is entitled to receive Rs.50,000/- p.m. in order to have decent living. Having come to this conclusion, learned Judge has not given any reasons as to why she is reducing this amount of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/- in the operative portion. Reason is the heartbeat of the order. If there are no reasons, then I cannot sustain such an order. 26. Having come to this conclusion, learned Judge has not given any reasons as to why she is reducing this amount of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/- in the operative portion. Reason is the heartbeat of the order. If there are no reasons, then I cannot sustain such an order. 26. Following the principles in Dr.Rajiv Vergeese case, I have to hold that when the husband is generating about Rs.7 lakhs per month as income, to order Rs.25,000/- as monthly maintenance for the wife, can hardly be treated as sufficient. Had the husband and wife been resided together, I am certain that the husband would have spent more than this amount on her. The lifestyle of the parties and their status would have to be taken into consideration. 27.The husband is driving a vehicle which is of a foreign origin. He is also working as a Professor of Medicine in the Pre-eminent Medical College and an Executive Director in a hospital. He is highly qualified medical professional. The wife is not a country bumpkin. She is a person trained in law. Due to circumstances pointed out above, she is not in a position to earn a living as a lawyer. Therefore, I have to treat her as a person “Not having independent income sufficient for her” and not being in a position to take care of the necessary expenses of the proceedings. 28. While Ms.Arthi claims that apart from the present litigation, several other litigations were initiated at the instance of the husband, I am not willing to accept her plea that the husband bankrolled all the litigations that have been initiated against the wife. The word 'proceeding' under Section 24 refers to the proceedings between the husband and the wife and not between the wife and other third parties. She is right that the husband has been providing financial support to persons who are prosecuting her. Enemy's enemy is a friend. On account of that fact, the husband has bankrolled the wife's opponents. That it does not mean he has to support the wife also in such litigations, thereby, balancing the financial strength of both the parties in the other ligations. 29. With respect to the plea of Ms.Sudarsana Sundar that the wife is receiving dividends from the Insurance Company, the said amounts are being received by the wife as representative of the children. 29. With respect to the plea of Ms.Sudarsana Sundar that the wife is receiving dividends from the Insurance Company, the said amounts are being received by the wife as representative of the children. Therefore, this amount cannot be treated as an amount which has come into the hands of the wife to sustain herself. 30. On the plea that the wife has not filed her IT returns, I have to take note of the additional affidavit filed by the wife. When the wife has filed her additional affidavit before the trial Court that she has been removed from the rolls of the Bar Council, to expect her to file her income tax returns is an act of impossibility. 31. A plea was raised by Ms.Sudarsana Sundar that, only on account of the fact, that the wife does not require the money that has been ordered by the trial Court towards maintenance, she did not receive the same when tendered or withdraw it after deposit. It shows that she does not require the money. On this plea, I am not agreeable with her. Perhaps the wife being a legally trained person would have been under the impression if she receives the amounts, she would not be in a position to challenge the order. Being a lawyer, perhaps this played on her mind and hence she did not receive the amount. For the mere fact that the wife did not receive the maintenance ordered by the Court, does not mean she is barred from moving the higher forums of law seeking enhancement. I am not going to hold this point against the wife. 32. With respect to the plea on dragging on the proceedings, I have to point out in the normal course of events, the OP would not have been taken up for disposal, if not for the “nudge” that has been given to the trial Court, by this Court. The wife could have always waited and filed an application for interim maintenance. As pointed out by Ms.Arthi, the wife is facing as many as 29 litigations. She is firefighting and does not have the support of anyone other than her father and an occasional help of her brother. Having given off his daughter in marriage, the father who obviously is a senior citizen also would not be in a position to sustain his daughter, month on month. She is firefighting and does not have the support of anyone other than her father and an occasional help of her brother. Having given off his daughter in marriage, the father who obviously is a senior citizen also would not be in a position to sustain his daughter, month on month. Yet he has been depositing the amounts with great difficulty, in her name though his driver, one, Settu. The learned trial Judge had accepted the plea that the deposits made through by her father and brother through Settu, the driver, cannot be treated as regular income for the wife. The said finding is confirmed. 33. In the light of the above discussions, considering the status of the respondent/husband and the fact that he is already maintaining his children, I am inclined to revise the order of maintenance from Rs.25,000/- granted by the trial Court to Rs.1 lakh p.m. The request of Ms.Arthi that it should be enhanced to Rs.2 lakhs is rejected. Considering the peculiar facts of this case, the liability to pay this amount will commence from the date of filing of O.P.No.1320 of 2023 and not from the date of filing of I.A.No.6 of 2024. Insofar as the litigation expenses is concerned, a sum of Rs. 75,000/- is fixed as the amount that the husband would have to pay under this head. Four weeks time is granted to the husband to pay the said amount. 34. The learned trial Judge before pronouncing orders in O.P.No.1320 of 2023, shall confirm that the arrears as well as the monthly amounts till the date of pronouncement of the orders have been paid and thereafter pass appropriate orders in the O.P. 35. The civil revision petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.