Madras High Court
S. Mahendran vs M.Rajeshwari on 11 July, 2018
Author: P. Velmurugan
Bench: P. Velmurugan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.07.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VELMURUGAN
CRP(PD) No. 559 of 2018 and
C.M.P.No.2997 of 2018
S. Mahendran ... Petitioner
Vs.
M.Rajeshwari ... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 20.09.2017 in I.A.No.4 of 2017 in H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2016 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.T.S.Sivakumar
For Respondent : Mr.D.R.Arunkumar
*******
O R D E R
The revision petitioner has filed a petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2016 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet, in which the respondent/wife has filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.4 of 2017 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for interim alimony. During the pendency of the divorce petition, the Trial Court, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and also after hearing the arguments, passed an order dated 20.09.2017 directing the revision petitioner/husband to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month as interim alimony. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet, the revision petitioner/husband has preferred the present revision.
2. The leaned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the respondent/wife had already filed a Maintenance Case in M.C. No.50 of 2016 before the learned Family Court Judge, Palakkad, stating that she is not employed elsewhere and not earning, but the fact remains that, she is earning a considerable sum around Rs.5000/- and in order to harass the husband, she has filed such application seeking interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month. It is a settled law that when the wife has an independent source of income, she is not entitled to get interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act so also litigation expenses. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the Interlocutory Application filed for interim maintenance is not maintainable, whreas, the Trial Court without going into such aspects, has allowed the application for interim maintainance, and hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/wife would submit that receiving the interim alimony under section 125 Cr.P.C. is not bar for getting interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, and the learned counsel, in support of such contention has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Mrs. Chitra v. Pugazhenthi @ Sasikumar, reported in CDJ 2011 MHC 671.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records.
5. It is seen that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship of the parties (viz.,husband and wife). The revision petitioner/husband has filed the petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2016 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet. In which, the respondent/wife has filed an application for interim alimony in I.A.No.4 of 2017 for awarding Rs.2,000/- per month as interim maintenance and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses and the trial Court, by order, dated 20.09.2017 allowed such application. Challenging the said order, dated 20.09.2017, the present revision has been filed by the revision petitioner/husband. The revision petitioner has not let in any oral and documentary evidence to prove that the respondent/wife is employed elsewhere and earning good income. Therefore, in the absence of the same, the order of the trial court is not perverse. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, receiving maintenance by the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is not a bar to receive interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act, 1955. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the trial court.
6. Thus, finding no merit in the Civil Revision Petition, the same stands dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed the learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalept, to dispose of the H.M.O.P. No.69 of 2016 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
11.07.2018
msm
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
P. VELMURUGAN, J.,
msm
To
The Subordinate Judge,
Udumalpet.
CRP(PD) No. 559 of 2018
11.07.2018