Petitioner/husband, aggrieved by the order of interim maintenance passed by the Principal Sub Court, Thiruppur, is before this Court.
2. The petitioner husband has filed an application before the Family Court for divorce in the year 2005 in HMOP No. 42 of 2005. The wife/ respondent in the divorce petition filed I.A.No. 2215 of 2005 on her behalf and on behalf of the minor daughter claiming a sum of Rs.2,500/- each as maintenance. Such application was resisted by the husband. Before the Court below , the wife contended that the husband is the owner of a jewellery shop and they have two children. The first child is the son and the second child is the daughter and due to cruelty and severe family discord, she left the matrimonial house and she claimed a sum of Rs.2500/ each for herself and her daughter as maintenance. The husband stated that he suffered loss in the business. Since he was financially cripple, the wife left the matrimonial house. He also stated that he is taking care of the son and due to his financial strain, he is unable to make the payment for interim maintenance. He further stated that the wife is having sufficient income by herself. On the contrary, the petitioner is in great financial stress. He is unable to make any payment for maintenance. The Court below came to prima facie conclusion that the husband has without any basis failed to take care of the wife and daughter. The Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner/husband has some sources of income and therefore, he has to provide maintenance for the wife and the girl child. The girl child is undergoing school education.
3. The trial Court, considering all these aspects and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner/husband and the wife are residing around Tiruppur town, a major industrial town, the petitioner/husband should pay a sum of Rs.1500/- each to the claimants viz., wife and minor daughter as interim maintenance and such amount should be paid on or before 10th of every month. The further direction of the Court below is that the interim maintenance amount should be paid from the date of the application.
4. The divorce petition has been filed in the year 2005 and the application for interim maintenance by the wife and daughter has been filed in 2005 itself. The petitioner/husband was supporting the wife and two children from 1989 which shows that he has reasonable sources of income to maintain a family of four consisting of two children. The reason attributed for family discord according to the petitioner, is financial loss for which no specific material has been placed before the Court below. The respondents entitlement for interim maintenance is not disputed. It is the quantum of maintenance at Rs.1500/- each, granted that is seriously challenged in the present revision petition. One factor, which can be taken into consideration in the present case is that the application has been filed in the year 2005 and the order has been passed in the year 2009 and the cost of living in the industrial town Tiruppur and its surrounding is quite high and the sum of Rs.1,500/-each to the wife and daughter cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. This Court finds no error or just cause to interfere with the order of the Court below to reduce the amount granted towards interim maintenance.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that attempt to reconcile the marital discord proved futile and the Court below may be directed to dispose of the main original petition at an early date. The family Court proceedings will have telling effect on the children, the husband and the wife. Hence, it is desirable that the original petition should be taken up and disposed of at an early date. Accordingly, the family Court is directed to dispose of the HMOP No. 42 of 2005 at the earliest preferably before 31.11.2009.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that in the order which is under challenge, the Court below has observed that the first respondent/ wife has been driven away from the matrimonial home by the petitioner/husband and this finding will affect the final out come of the original petition. He prayed that the observation of the Court below in the interlocutory application may be set aside. It is made clear that the court while deciding the main original petition need not be swayed by any observation made while disposing the interlocutory application. All the issues raised by the parties in the HMOP shall be decided on its own merits. No costs.
7. Finding no merits, this civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2009 is also dismissed. No costs.
ra To The Principal Sub Court Tiruppur