Inveighing the order dated 11.11.2008 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet in I.A.No.19 of 2008 in H.M.O.P.No.68 of 2007, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. Despite printing the names concerned, no one represented.
3. A summarisation and summation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:
The revision petitioner herein filed HMOP No.68 of 2007 before the Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet seeking divorce as against his wife/respondent herein under Section 13 (1) (1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent/wife herein entered appearance and filed counter. She also filed I.A.No.19 of 2008 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance in a sum of Rs.7,500/- p.m. After hearing both sides, the lower Court awarded interim maintenance in a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month payable by the husband to the wife. Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the order of the lower Court, this revision has been filed on various grounds inter alia thus:
The lower Court ignoring the detailed counter filed by the husband, simply awarded interim maintenance when in fact the wife was not at all entitled to any interim maintenance in view of her conduct and that too in the wake of she having filed M.C.No.27 of 2008 in the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Udumalpet. Without considering the financial commitments of the husband, the lower Court ordered interim maintenance to be paid by him in favour of his wife.
4. Pored over and perused the order of the lower Court including the typed set of papers, which would demonstrate and display, evince and portray that the relationship between the parties is an admitted one; the husband did not adduce any evidence before the lower Court to prove quantum of his income; even though the husband alleged that the wife got a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as permanent alimony from her former husband at the time of divorce, nonetheless he did not choose to adduce evidence in that regard. The husband would impute cruelty on the part of the wife in her attitude towards him. But while deciding the I.A for interim maintenance, the lower Court was not expected to give its finding on that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2003)10 SCC 228 [Amarjit Kaur vs. Harbhajan Singh]. An excerpt from it would run thus:
"8. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 empowers the court in any proceeding under the Act, if it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of any one of them order the other party to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding and monthly maintenance as may seem to be reasonable during the proceeding, having regard to also the income of both the petitioner and the respondent."
A bare reading and poring over the precedent would exemplify and evince, convey and spotlight the fact that the Court's while dealing with the interim application should not delve deep into the allegations made by the petitioner/husband as against the wife and those contentious issues could be decided only while disposing the main O.P. As such, the husband's liability to pay interim maintenance subsists.
5. Indubitably and indisputably, incontrovertibly and unassailably the husband is working as a driver. The lower Court correctly observed that in the absence of the husband having adduced any evidence as per
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act concerning his income, the lower Court was justified in inferring and understanding that his income would not be less than Rs.7,500/- p.m. The lower Court also took into consideration that he is maintaining his minor child and accordingly, awarded only a sum of Rs.1,500/- p.m as interim maintenance payable by the husband in favour of his wife.
6. It is a common or garden principle that the wife is entitled to live in commensurate with the status of her husband. Here, the status of the husband is that of a driver and as such the wife of such driver would require at least a sum of Rs.50/- per day to keep her body and soul together; to keep the wolf from the door; to keep the pot boiling; to meet her basic creature comforts and to meet her expenses towards food, shelter and clothing. Accordingly if viewed, awarding a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month, by no stretch of imagination could be dubbed and labelled, described or portrayed as excessive.
7. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed confirming the order passed by the lower Court in I.A.No.19 of 2008. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.