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: 2155 of 2008
C. Leelakrishnan
No: 394, Giriamman Koil Street,
Peelamedu,
Coimbatore District. ... Petitioner
-vs-
V. Devi,
No: 9, Indira Street,
Arupperpalayam,
Tirupur,
Coimbatore District. ... Respondent
.. .. ..
Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 24.10.2007 made in I.A. No: 150 of 2007 in H.M.O.P. No: 594 of 2006 on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore.
For petitioner : Mr. P. Valliappan
For respondent : Mr. R. Babu
.. .. ..
O R D E R
This revision has been filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the lower Court in I.A. No: 150 of 2007 in H.M.O.P. No: 594 of 2006 dated 24.10.2007, an order awarding a sum of Rs.1,500/- to the petitioner and a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the son of the parties and a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses as interim alimony payable in favour of the wife.
2. The averments made by both the parties in support of their case are as follows :
" Husband filed H.M.O.P. No: 594 of 2006 before the Family Court, Coimbatore. Wife filed I.A. No: 150 of 2007 seeking interim maintenance for herself and their son and also for litigation expenses. Wife claimed that the husband is earning a sum of Rs.7,500/- as salary and was also earning a sum of Rs.2,500/- through private jobs. Wife is not earning and hence, she is not able to maintain herself and also her son. Hence, this application was filed, seeking interim maintenance. In reply, husband had stated that all that is stated in the application filed by the wife is false and that he is earning only a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month and hence, this application should be rejected. "
3. The Courts below had come to the conclusion of awarding a sum of Rs.1,500/- against the claim of Rs. 2,000/- made by the wife and a sum of Rs.1,000/- to their son Aravind as claimed in the petition and a sum of Rs.2,000/- against the claim of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The revision petitioner who is the husband had preferred this revision against the said order.
4. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side in support of their respective case. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the order passed by the lower Court in granting interim alimony to the wife and son of the revision petitioner, the husband is not in accordance with law and it is not based upon any proof provided by the wife in support of her case. He would also submit in his argument that the respondent wife is working as a clerical assistant and is earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month and since she has got an independent income she is not entitled to claim interim alimony. He would further submit in his argument that the respondent/petitioner is earning a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month only and the direction against the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- to the petitioner and Rs.1,000/- to the son is not in accordance with law and the imperatives of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, he had requested the Court to interfere with the order passed by the lower Court and to revise the order.
5. The learned counsel for the wife had submitted in his argument that the lower Court had considered the issue and had come to the conclusion that the petitioner husband is capable paying a sum of Rs.1,500/- to the petitioner and a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the son of the petitioner and also a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses and the allegation that the respondent was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- as clerical assistant was not proved and therefore, the order passed by the lower Court need not be interfered with. Therefore, he had requested the Court to dismiss the revision petition.
6. After giving anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by both sides, this Court could see that the Courts below had considered all the relevant facts and also the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent before coming to the conclusions. The relationship between the parties as husband and wife and a son was born out of their wedlock is not in dispute. The allegation that the respondent/wife is earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- is not proved and therefore, the Courts below had come to the conclusion that the respondent/wife and their son are entitled for interim alimony. On a careful perusal of the order passed by the lower Court, it is seen that it had come to the conclusion that the petitioner/husband was working at Coimbatore and was earning a sum of Rs.2,500/- by doing private business and the said fact was falsely denied by the respondent husband in order to evade the payment of maintenance to the wife and son. Actually, the petitioner/husband had admitted in the counter filed by him before the lower Court that he was earning only a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month. No doubt, it is not possible to lead a life with a simple earning of Rs.2,500/- per month in the city of Coimbatore and, therefore, the Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the allegation made by the petitioner husband in counter affidavit is not reliable.
7. On a overall consideration of the order passed by the Courts below, this court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the lower Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In these circumstances, this Court finds that there is no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below and hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for both sides requested the Court to give a direction to dispose of the main case as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the Presiding Officer of the Family Court at Coimbatore, to dispose of the main H.M.O.P. No: 594 of 2006 as expeditiously as possible in any event not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
gp
[ PRV / 15954 ]
No comments:
Post a Comment