ORDER
S. Ashok Kumar, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 7.8.2006 made in I.A.No: 269 of 2005 in H.M.O.P. No. 165 of 2004 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode.
2. The revision petitioner was married to the respondent on 16.3.2000 at Erode as per the Hindu customary rites. According to the petitioner, her father spent nearly a Crore of rupees towards the expenses for the marriage and the dowry demanded on the side of the respondent. The petitioner alleges that the respondent and his parents always harassed the petitioner both physically and mentally. In such circumstances, the respondent initiated proceedings for divorce on the ground of cruelty in HMOP NO.165 of 2005 before the learned Prl.Subordinate Judge, Erode, which, the petitioner/wife is resisting.
3. While that being so, the petitioner joined a Post Graduate Course in Management with Sathyabama University, Jeppiar Education Trust, Chennai where she is doing her first year MBA and is staying at Virugambakkam, Chennai as a paying guest. Thus she is required to pay fees for the course and she needs money to maintain herself. According to the petitioner, till finality is reached in the said divorce petition, the respondent is liable to maintain the petitioner in accordance with his status, especially when the petitioner does not have any independent income of her own. According to the petitioner, the means possessed by her father cannot be a ground for the respondent to refuse payment of interim alimony. Therefore she filed I.A.269 of 2005 in the pending Divorce Petition claiming a sum of Rs. 30,000/= as monthly maintenance. Though the learned Prl. Subordinate Judge, found that the respondent is liable to pay maintenance, however ordered only a sum of Rs. 2,500/= per month without taking into consideration the copy of sale deeds, annual rental valuation certificates and adangal extracts to prove the income of the respondent. Hence this revision.
4. However, according to the learned Counsel for the respondent the petitioner willfully and wantonly deserted and neglected the respondent/husband and the petitioner did not even like to live separately along with him in the newly constructed house. It is submitted that most of the copies of documents produced before this Court have already been produced before the trial court and the valuation report was not authenticated and in fact it is huge and unbelievable one. Further, such documents are not relevant while considering the petition for interim maintenance. Further, the status of the party may be considered only at the time of final settlement and income alone should be considered for interim maintenance.
5. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner cited decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as decisions of various High Courts to the effect that the husband is liable to maintain the wife in consideration of their lifestyle and status. In , the Hon’ble Apex court held that when attempts by the husband to conceal his true income is made, adverse inference against him about his income could be drawn. In , the Delhi High Court held that when the properly alleged to have been bequeathed to the wife by her father which is subject matter of a suit pending between the wife and her brothers, the same cannot be taken as she is having independent income for her support. In , the Calcutta High Court held that there is no fixed principle in fixing the maintenance amount and the court has to take into consideration the status of the parties, their need, capacity of husband to pay having regard to reasonable expenses for maintenance of wife and chid and also cost of living index. In that case it is also held that if the husband voluntarily having incapacitated himself from earning, he cannot avoid his liability to maintain his wife and child and the court can legitimately take into consideration his ability to earn reasonable amount in determining amount of maintenance pendente lite. The Delhi High Court in its decision held that the court can take into consideration the fact that the husband was well qualified and was gainfully employed in the United States of America and presumption must attach to his income in that country and considering the lifestyle of parties awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/= to the wife.
6. In this case also pendente lite, the petitioner has produced many of the sale deed copies, annual rental valuation, adangal extracts, to show the wealthiness of the respondent and his parents. The respondent has also produced some copies to show that the parents of the petitioner is also well placed as they have a Motorcycle show room at Erode. But it is the settled law that the husband is bound to maintain the wife even pendente lite and the financial position of the parents of the wife is immaterial. Therefore, taking into consideration the copies of documents produced by the petitioner which would prima facie make it clear that the respondent is having properties worth more than Rs. 20 crores of rupees, I am of the view that the learned Principle Subordinate Judge himself could have fixed a higher sum as interim alimony than the sum of Rs. 2,500/= awarded, which is very meager considering the cost of living price index, status of the lifestyle of the parties and also when it is alleged that the petitioner has joined in a reputed University and is doing her MBA course at Chennai. In these circumstance, and as guided by the decisions referred to above, I am of the considered view that a sum of Rs. 20,000/= can be fixed as interim alimony.
7. In the result, the order passed in I.A. No. 269 of 2005 in H.M.O.P. No. 165 of 2004 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode is modified and a sum of Rs. 20,000/= is awarded as interim alimony pending the main HMOP. It is also directed that the petitioner should return the movables given by the respondent and the respondent also should return the moveables, including jewells to the petitioner.
8. Consequently, connected M.P is closed. No costs.