J.Jeyachandran v. J.Gomathi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23.09.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR C.R.P.(PD)No.3077 of 2019 J.Jeyachandran ... Petitioner Vs.

J.Gomathi ... Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.152 of 2018 in H.M.O.P.No.83 of 2017 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ponneri dated 22.01.2019.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajendran Raghavan

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.152 of 2018 in H.M.O.P.No.83 of 2017 dated 22.01.2019 by the Subordinate Judge, Ponneri. 2.Before the trial Court, the husband filed the main petition i.e. H.M.O.P.No.83 of 2017 where the respondent in the HMOP, the wife filed I.A.No.152 of 2018 seeking for an interim maintenance of 1/4

Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite for the petitioner /wife and a daughter and also seek for a litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

3.After hearing both sides, the trial Court, through the impugned judgment, has allowed the interim maintenance for the wife and the child, a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month till the disposal of the HMOP, at the same time, the litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- sought for by the wife, has been rejected, through the impugned order, as against which, the present revision has been filed by the husband/revision petitioner.

4.Heard Mr.R.Rajendran Raghavan, learned counsel for the petitioner and I have gone through the materials placed before this Court and the reasons stated by the learned Judge for justification in ordering interim maintenance for a sum of Rs.6,000/- for the wife and the minor child.

5.In the present day economical conditions, a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month for both mother and child is a very very minimal and 2/4

without which, they cannot survive. Therefore, when the trial Court passed an order giving such interim maintenance for a sum of Rs.6,000/- and also by rejecting the litigation expenses sought for by them, this Court feels that it is a justifiable order and absolutely, no ground to interfere in the same. In that view of the matter, this revision petition fails and hence, the same is dismissed. No costs. 23.09.2019 Sgl To The Subordinate Judge, Ponneri.

3/4

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

Sgl C.R.P.(PD)No.3077 of 2019 23.09.2019 4/4