CRP/3081/2001 of CHITHR SRINIVASAN Vs R.SRINIVASAN on 18 December 2003

:O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decretal dated8.8.2001 made in I.A.No.520 of 2000 in O.P.No.742 of 1997 by the Court of IIAdditional Family Judge, Chennai and to enhance the maintenance amount.

2. Tracing the history of the above civil revision petitionhaving come to be filed, it comes to be known that the respondent herein hasfiled O.P.No.742 of 1997 before the Court of II Additional Family Judge,Chennai for divorce. Pending the said Original Petition, the petitionerherein has filed a petition in I.A.No.520 of 2000 praying interim maintenanceand other reliefs, and since the said petition was allowed granting a sum ofRs.500/= as monthly maintenance, besides the other reliefs, challenging thequantum of interim maintenance, the petitioner herein has come forward to filethe civil revision petition on certain grounds as brought forth in the groundsof revision such as that the learned Judge was wrong in determining thequantum of interim maintenance on the sole ground that the respondent is ablind man and that he cannot work without the help of others and this factitself would enable the Court to decide the issue as to the fixation ofquantum of interim maintenance; that the learned Judge ought to have seen thatthe respondent/husband is a graduate, well built, and is employed in theInsurance Company in a respectable post and is doing the job independently andis drawing a salary of Rs.9,401/=; that the learned Judge was wrong in

observing that the respondent being a blind man, with great difficulty, hasbeen working in the office and earning the income, when the respondent himselfhas not expressed his difficulties in the counter and the learned Judge oughtto have seen that no company/employer would pay salary to any person in agratuitous manner; that the learned Judge has erred in showing sympathytowards the respondent/husband that he is a blind man in the interim alimonyapplication filed by the petitioner/wife when she is contesting and resistingthe petition filed by the husband for dissolution of marriage under Section13(1)(a) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; that the learned Judgeought to have shown sympathy towards the petitioner/wife when she pleaded thatshe did not have any source of income for her livelihood and that she isdepending on her aged parents; that the learned Judge was wrong in observingthat the petitioner/wife is not entitled to claim interim maintenance from therespondent, who is a blind man, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act andthe petitioner cannot invoke the said provision to the facts arising in thiscase; that the learned Judge has overlooked the fact that therespondent/husband has only moved the petition for Divorce under Section13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and that the wife, inspite of the physical inability of her husband, is opposing this petitionfiled by the husband and in such circumstances, the husband having filed thepetition for divorce, ought to have given the interim alimony as prayed for bythe wife for her livelihood; that the learned Judge ought to have seen thatSection 24 does not say that the interim alimony will not be granted to thewife in a case where the husband is a physically handicapped person; that theCourt cannot import limitation on the Section when the Section is clear inrespect of granting the quantum of interim maintenance; that the learned Judgewas wrong in taking into consideration the net salary of therespondent/husband in determining the quantum of interim maintenance payableto the petitioner/wife; that the learned Judge has erred in taking intoaccount the deductions shown in the salary certificate produced by therespondent while fixing the interim maintenance under Section 24 of the HinduMarriage Act; that the order of the learned Judge in determining the monthlyinterim maintenance under Section 24 at Rs.500/= is arbitrary as it is notbased on any material and the amount so determined is not a reasonable one andis based on assumption; that the learned Judge was wrong in observing that thepetitioner/wife is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 24 andSection 24 of the Act does not visualize these types of cases and thisobservation is putting a spokes on the provisions of law when there is norestriction or limitation in the Section, resulting in determination ofinterim maintenance below the par and hence this revision.

3. During arguments, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe petitioner would only reiterate the points raised in the petition andwould cite the following judgments in support of her case.

(i) M.Ravishankar v. R.Pushpa {I (1998) DMC 197}(ii) Rajesh v. Anuradha {II (1998) DMC 440}(iii) Sudha @ Ranjana R.Patil v. Rajkumar Deoganda Patil{II (1998) DMC 417}

So far as first judgment cited above is concerned, it is held therein:

"It is seen that the petitioner is getting a salary of Rs.6,600/= and odd, out of which Rs.5,000/= and odd is shown as deductions.Some of the loans such as F.A., L.I.C. Premium, P.F. loan, etc. cannot betaken into account for the purpose of determining the resources of thepetitioner. However, taking into consideration the income-tax, P.F. and thehouse building loan deductions, it would be reasonable to fix an interimmaintenance of Rs.1,000/= per month subject to appropriate fixation at thefinal hearing."

So far as second judgment cited above is concerned, it is held therein:

"The scheme of the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act clearly

show the legislative intent to protect the interests of the spouse in theevent of matrimonial dispute. A spouse unable to maintain himself/ herself isentitled to maintenance on the principle of equi-status and respect, that thespouse would have enjoyed if continued to live with the other spouse. Theprovisions for maintenance pendente lite and even for future maintenance atthe time of dissolution of marriage are indicative of a profound concern ofthe law makers for the said spouse and respect for the institution ofmarriage. Nothing has been brought on record which could reflect that therecould be any plausible reason or justification for declining maintenanceclaimed by the wife may be the extent of the claim is a matter to beconsidered."

So far as third judgment cited above is concerned, it is held therein:

"Blindness of husband: No ground to refuse maintenance - Section 12 5, Criminal Procedure Code speaks of inability of wife to maintainherself - It does not speak about physical capacity or earning capacity ofhusband to maintain himself or wife or children - Husband, even though blind,his entering into marriage with wife, petitioner indicates his undertaking tomaintain his wife - Immovable property standing in name of husband transferredby him to avoid legal clutches - Order passed by Judicial Magistrate modified- Maintenance amount enhanced to Rs.300/= from Rs.150/= per month."

On such arguments, the learned counsel would seek to allow this petitiongranting more maintenance.

4. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for thepetitioner, it could be assessed that the main application in O.P.No.742 of1997 has been filed by the respondent/husband, who is alleged to be totallyblind, under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act fordissolution of the marriage solemnized between himself and the petitioner/wifeon 01.12.2003, in which, the petitioner/ wife has filed I.A.No.520 of 2000seeking monthly interim maintenance of Rs.2,750/= towards interim alimony,Rs.250/- towards travelling expenses and Rs.750/= towards litigation expensesrespectively, and the trial court, having gone into the facts of theinterlocutory application filed by the petitioner/wife and assessing all theconditions prevalent in the case such as the wife is jobless, the husband isblind and drawing a salary of Rs.3,868/= as per the salary certificate, even though it is claimed on the part of the petitioner/wife that his gross salaryis Rs.9,401/=, and without anybody's support, the husband may not be able totake care of himself and that it involves sufficient expenses, and further therespondent/husband being a blind person, it is not reasonable to burden himwith heavy amount of maintenance as claimed by the petitioner/wife, hasultimately granted a sum of Rs.5 00/= as monthly interim maintenance, Rs.250/=as travelling expenses and Rs.750/= as litigation expenses to the petitioner,which in toto, comes around Rs.1,500/-, and it cannot be said to be a minoramount in whatever form the same has been granted to t he revealed salary;that the trial court, having its own discussions on the merit of the case andwith due opportunity for the parties to be heard, has ultimately arrived atthe conclusion as mentioned supra.

5. A careful perusal of the order passed by the lower court would also show that the lower court has traced the facts and circumstances aspleaded by parties and has had its own discussions on the subject in thecontext of the law prevailing on the subject and has ultimately arrived at theconclusion to pass orders granting a total maintenance of Rs.1,500/= asaforementioned, and this Court is not inclined to cause its interference intothe well considered and merited order passed by the lower court.

6. Furthermore, there is also no room for any more discussion to be held on the subject since no other legality is argued on the part of the petitioner, excepting to cite the abovejudgments, all of which are general in nature, either brining out the intentof legislature to protect the interest of the spouse or the quantum to befixed and the like, and therefore, the judgments cited on the part of thepetitioner would have only a little impact on the subject, which has to bedecided only on the facts pleaded and observing the norms of granting interimmaintenance.

In result,(i) the above civil revision petition does not meritacceptance and it becomes liable only to be dismissed and is dismissed assuch;(ii) the fair and decretal dated 8.8.2001 made in I.A.No.520of 200 0 in O.P.No.742 of 1997 by the Court of II Additional Family Judge,Chennai, is hereby confirmed;(iii) consequently, C.M.P. No.16277 of 2001 is alsodismissed;(iv) however, in the circumstances of the case, there shall beno order as to costs.

kb/gs.Index:Yes.Internet:Yes.

The II Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai.