Animadverting upon the order dated 13.3.2008 passed by the Family Court, Salem, in I.A.No.24 of 2007 in FCOP No.78 of 2005, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of this revision petition as stood exposited from the records could succinctly and precisely, pithily and briefly be set out thus:
The husband/revision petitioner filed a divorce petition as against the wife/R1 herein. During the pendency of such petition, the wife on her behalf and on behalf of her two minor children filed I.A.No.24 of 2007 in FCOP No.78 of 2005 in the Family Court, Salem. The Family Court awarded interim maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month in favour of the wife and a sum of Rs.1,250/- each in favour of two minor children, in total a sum of Rs.5,000/- payable by the revision petitioner herein from the date of filing of the FCOP. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Family Court, this revision is focussed.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop his argument to the effect that even as per the versions in the affidavit of the wife, the husband is in cash strapped and impecunious circumstances; once he was conducting finance business; subsequent to the coming into force of the Special Enactments prohibiting such finance dealings, he could not survive in that business and for that matter even as early as in the year 1999 itself he could not conduct that business lucratively; he was hounded by his debtors; at present he is only functioning as an acting driver and earning a meagre sum and with that amount he could not honour the lower Court's order in paying interim maintenance; over and above that the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the lower Court was not justified in awarding interim maintenance from the date of filing of FCOP.
5. Whereas the learned counsel for the wife/R1 would develop his argument to the effect that the husband admittedly is in an affluent situation and only for avoiding payment of interim maintenance he has come forward with baseless pleas. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the revision petition.
6. Perused the records. As pointed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the wife in her affidavit clearly and categorically stated that once the husband was doing Kanduvatti business and subsequently he could not perform that business in the manner as he was doing earlier lucratively.
7. Whereas, the learned counsel for the first respondent would invite the attention of this Court to the deposition of the husband to the effect that he is owning a house which is found set out in the documents marked as Exs.A1 and A2. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the said house belongs to the revision petitioner's father and that he would not be able to honour the award because of his penurious circumstances.
8. At this juncture, my mind is reminiscent and redolent of the common or garden principle of law concerning awarding of interim maintenance to the effect that a husband is bound to pay maintenance to his wife so as to enable the latter to lead a life in commensurate with the status of the former. Relating to payment of maintenance by the father to the children, it has become a trite proposition that a father cannot plead his penury at all. A man is bound to maintain his wife and children. The only question that arises is relating to quantum. Awarding a sum of Rs.1,250/- for each of the children by the lower Court could not be stated to be excessive as without even such a sum of maintenance, a child cannot keep its body and soul together in this present day cost of living. So far as the interim maintenance of Rs.2,500/- to the wife is concerned, I would like to observe that no doubt a lady would require at least Rs.100/- to lead a reasonably decent life in this present day cost of living.
9. However, in view of the admission made by the wife herself in her affidavit that her husband at present is in doldrums financially and there is no clinching evidence about his monthly income, I am of the considered opinion that awarding a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the wife would meet the ends of justice instead of Rs.2,500/- per month. There shall be some amount of guesswork involved, but the entire ratiocination should not be based on guesstimation only but should be based on some evidence. Here in view of the admission on the side of the wife herself that the husband faces some financial crisis at present, I am of the view that this Court would be justified in reducing the interim maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month to Rs.2,000/- per month in favour of the wife and in respect of the children, no reduction is possible. Hence in these circumstances, the revision petition is partly allowed and the husband/revision petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife from the date of divorce petition till pending disposal of the FCOP in favour of the wife.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the lower Court was not justified in awarding maintenance earlier to the filing of the I.A., in my opinion fails to carry conviction with this Court and in regard to awarding of maintenance is concerned, there should be a liberal view.
11. The husband by filing the divorce petition unambiguously made the point clear that the wife and the children are not living with him and in such a case, the lower Court in its wisdom thought it fit to award maintenance in the I.A., which was subsequently filed from the date of filing of the divorce petition itself which warrants no interference and it is in commensurate with the current line of thinking in awarding maintenance liberally.
12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that speedy disposal of the FCOP would be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. I find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the lower Court is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report compliance.
13. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14. Memo filed by the revision petitioner to the effect that a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only)was paid by him to the wife/first respondent by way of demand draft number 974694 dated 23.12.2008 is recorded.
19.01.2009 Index :Yes Internet:Yes To Family Court, Salem G.RAJASURIA, J gms C.R.P.(PD)No.2053 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 19.01.2009