interim alimony of Rs.1,000/- per month and a sum of Rs.2,000/- for litigation expenses

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

Date :   16..10..2008



Coram :


The Honble Mr. Justice V. Periyakaruppiah


C.R.P. ( P.D. ) No: 2150 of 2008


Kumaraguru
Madavilaga Street,
Nannilam,
Thiruvarur District. ...  Petitioner

-vs-

Kamsala,
Madavilaga Street,
Nannilam,
Thiruvarur District. ...    Respondent

..  ..  ..

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 10.06.2008 made in I.A. No: 12 of 2008 in H.M.O.P. No: 42 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvarur.

For petitioner         :  M/s. S. Sounthar

For respondent       :  No appearance
..  ..  ..



O R D E R

This revision has been preferred against the order passed by the lower Court in I.A. No: 12 of 2008 in H.M.O.P. No: 42 of 2007 in awarding interim alimony of Rs.1,000/- per month and a sum of Rs.2,000/- for litigation expenses in the petition filed by the respondent before the lower Court seeking a monthly payment of Rs.3,000/- and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.  The relevant facts as put forth by both the parties before the Courts below are as follows :
"   Husband is the plaintiff who filed H.M.O.P. No: 42 of 2007 before the  Sub Court, Thiruvarur.  The wife filed I.A. No: 12 of 2008 seeking maintenance on the ground that the husband is running a provision store with a monthly income of Rs.8,000/- and other than this, he is owning nanjai and punjai lands and is also letting out money for interest from which his yearly income is Rs.25,000/- and hence, he is duty bound to pay maintenance to her.
The plaintiff claimed that the petitioner / wife has sufficient means to live.  He is not running any stores and that the small petty shop, he had was closed two years back.  He is not lending money and that he does not own any lands.  He is working as an assistant with a cable T.V. operator and wiring mechanic and is earning Rs.1,000/- per month."


2.  The lower Courts, after perusal of the allegations made in the affidavit and the counter affidavit, had come to the conclusion that the revision petitioner should have earned atleast a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month through coolie works even though he has stated to have eking out his livelihood by running a provision stores and also owning punja and nanja lands.  The Courts below have come to the conclusion that the reasons put forth by the husband are not reliable for the purpose of determining the interim alimony and only the requirement when wife is living at her father's house is whether she is earning and if it is not so the maintenance of the wife has to be meted out by the husband.

3.  The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit in his argument that the respondent wife is living in her fathers house without any reasonable cause and she has also not proved the income of the petitioner as claimed by her in the petition.  He would further submit in his argument that the revision petitioner was earning a sum of Rs.700/- per month only and the order passed by the Courts below to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the respondent is highly excessive and when the respondent  wife is living separately on her own accord, the revision petitioner  husband is not liable to pay maintenance to her.  He would also submit that  the   order  of  payment to an extent of Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses is also on the higher side especially when the respondent is assisted by Legal Aid Forum and, therefore, he sought for the interference of the impugned order by setting aside the same and to pass appropriate orders.

4.  None appeared for the respondent.  This Court considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and  perused  the material records placed.  The revision petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife.  For the purpose of convenience, the revision petitioner and the respondent herein are referred to as husband and wife respectively.  According to the  husband  he is earning only a sum of Rs.700/- and the claim of the wife that her husband was having a provision store and also owns  nanja and punja lands are not proved by the wife and therefore, the order passed by the Courts below is liable to be set aside.  On a careful perusal of the order, we could see that the Courts below had come to the conclusion that the husband is not running a provision store and the income of the husband as put forth in the petition was not proved by the wife.  However, the Courts below had come to the conclusion that the husband would have earned a sum of Rs.3,000/- even if he is doing a coolie work.  This conclusion is purely on a presumption and the said presumption cannot be deemed as illegal since it is not possible in the present condition to maintain a family even with a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month.  The case of the husband that he is earning only a sum of Rs.700/- per month cannot also be true especially when the husband was already running a grocessory shop and was earning much.  In these circumstances, it is not a case to interfere with the decision of the Courts below in deciding the income of the husband at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month and in ordering one third of the said amount towards the maintenance to the wife.   Similarly, the order of payment of Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses is also perfectly in order.  Even though the petitioner is assisted with Legal Aid Forum, there is no impediment to pass such an order towards payment of litigation expenses by the Courts below.  For all the reasons stated above, finding no illegality in the order passed by the Courts below, the same is sustained and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.  Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.





gp






[ PRV / 15953 ]