Madras High Court
Arjunan vs Santhi @ Venkateshwari on 26 September, 2008
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M.Venugopal
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 26.09.2008 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice M.VENUGOPAL Civil Revision Petition (P.D.)No.1635 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 Arjunan ..Petitioner ..vs.. Santhi @ Venkateshwari ..Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order and decree dated 20.02.2008 passed in I.A.No.108 of 2007 in H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2007 on the file of Sub Court, Mettur, Salem. For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondent : Mr.K.Kalyanasundaram ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner/husband as against the order dated 20.02.2008 in I.A.No.108 of 2007 in H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2007 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Mettur, in allowing the said application, ordering a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month towards interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application till the disposal of the main petition and also a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. The respondent/wife has filed I.A.No.108 of 2007 in H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2007 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Mettur, for a direction to the revision petitioner/ husband to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses and Rs.25,000/- per month towards interim maintenance from the date of main H.M.O.P.petition till the disposal of the same. In the said application, the respondent/wife has averred that her marriage with the revision petitioner took place on 25.10.2003 according to Hindu rites and customs at S.P.Thirumana Mandapam, Mettur Taluk and that the revision petitioner/husband has deserted her and that he is employed as Mechanic in an Aeronautical Factory at Singapore, getting a monthly salary of Rs.1,00,000/- with perquisites like housing allowance, etc., and that she is a destitute lady and to maintain the dignity of matrimonial home, she requires an amount of Rs.20,000/- to meet all expenses and, therefore, prays for ordering a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards interim maintenance and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses.
3. The revision petitioner/husband in the counter has, inter alia, taken a plea that due to mental torture given by the respondent/wife, he already resigned the job and now he is an unemployed. He is residing at Thangamapuripattinam and that the maintenance amount claimed as Rs.30,000/- is highly excessive and the claim of litigation expenses as Rs.25,000/- is also excessive and that he is not in a position to pay the amount and that she has taken all the amounts from him when she was living with him. She is now leading a luxurious life and that she is having movable and immovable properties in her name and she is getting an income of Rs.10,000/- per month and therefore, she is not entitled to ask for interim maintenance, inasmuch as she has taken away all the savings of him and therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.
4. After hearing both sides, the learned Subordinate Judge, Mettur has allowed I.A.108 of 2007, ordering Rs.6,000/- per month towards maintenance amount from the date of filing of the said application till the date of disposal of the main petition and also further ordering Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent/wife urges before this Court that the learned Subordinate Judge, Mettur has borne in mind all the overall assessment and totality of the circumstances of the case and has passed a reasoned and cogent order in ordering interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- and inasmuch as the power of judicial review of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited, the civil revision petition has to be dismissed.
6. In support of his contention, learned counsel relies on the decision D.N.NIRANJAN KANI ..vs.. N.RAJEE( 2002(3) CTC 75, wherein at page 78, this Court has, among other things, observed as follows:
"14. This being a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court has to exercise powers of judicial review and it is definitely not an Appellate Court nor it could be interfered as if this is an appellate court. The power of judicial review under Article 227 is limited".
7. It is to be borne in mind that alimony means nourishment literally. In legal sense, it means an allowance for the support of a wife judicially separated from her husband, settled at the discretion of the Judge on consideration of all circumstances of the case and normally proportioned to the rank and quality of litigants and this is termed as permanent alimony and in a lis between the husband and wife the husband may be ordered to allow the wife alimony during the pendancy of the suit/any claim and this is usually called as alimony pendente lite and this doctrine supersedes the ordinary rule that costs follow the event.
8. It cannot be gained that the right of a wife to maintenance is an incident of the relationship of matrimony. Resultantly, the revision petitioner/husband is naturally bound to meet the wife's costs of any matrimonial proceeding as also to provide her the with the maintenance so as to enable her to support herself during pendency of such proceedings. Without means, the respondent/wife is unable to either to initiate the matrimonial proceeding or to contest the same. Consequently, her matrimonial rights would be in jeopardy.
9. As far as the present case is concerned, the revision petitioner in his H.M.O.P.45/2007 has averred that in May, 1997, he got a job in Singapore and therefore, went to Singapore. Though the revision petitioner/husband in the counter to I.A.No.108/2007 has stated that he has already resigned the job and that he is unemployed and that the respondent/wife is having movable and immovable properties in her name, getting an income of Rs.10,000/- per month and that she has taken all his savings, etc. For which, no proof either by way of oral or documentary has been projected before the trial court. Even otherwise, the revision petitioner/husband is duty bound to maintain his wife by any means considering her family background and the facilities which she require after bearing in mind the variety of circumstances. There is no escapade of the revision petitioner/husband in this regard on some pretext or other.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent/wife submits that the revision petitioner/husband is now in Singapore and he is in the habit of coming to India and going to Singapore frequently. In fact, the respondent/wife has not proved the factum of revision petitioner/husband in getting a monthly salary of Rs.1,00,000/-. Even then, this Court opines that the respondent/wife is entitled to the claim of interim maintenance and the litigation expenses. In fact, the respondent/wife is to maintain her soul and body together till the proceedings initiated against her are completed. Therefore, she requires a minimum amount and that too, in these days where the cost of living index and rate of inflation are souring high.
11. On a careful consideration of the order passed by the trial court and also taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the trial court in awarding monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- is quite reasonable, fair and prudent, based on equity and fair play and the same does not require any interference in the hands of this Court and in that view of the matter, the civil revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed to prevent the aberration of justice. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Index: Yes. 26.09.2008 Internet:Yes. gl To The Subordinate Judge, Mettur. M.VENUGOPAL, J., gl Order in Civil Revision Petition (P.D.)No.1635 of 2008 26.09.2008