IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:10.02.2009 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(PD)No.3688 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 Gajapathy Kumarasamy ... Petitioner vs. C.Anitha ... Respondent Civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 25.07.2007 passed by the learned II Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai in I.A.No.1314 of 2007 in O.P.No.3273 of 2006 on the file of II Additional Family Court, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Sureshkumar(No appearance) For Respondent : Mr.N.Veerasamy O R D E R
Inveighing the order dated 25.07.2007, passed by the learned II Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai in I.A.No.1314 of 2007 in O.P.No.3273 of 2006, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent. Despite printing the name, no one appeared for the petitioner and there was no representation on his behalf.
3. A ‘resume’ of facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:
The revision petitioner filed the O.P.No.3273 of 2006 seeking divorce as against the wife. In that, I.A.No.1314 of 2007 was filed by the wife claiming interim maintenance on her behalf and on behalf of her minor child. Whereupon, the Family Court awarded interim maintenance to a tune of Rs.12,000/- per month payable by the revision petitioner herein in favour of the respondent and the minor child and also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost payable by the husband to the wife. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Family Court, this revision has been filed on various grounds.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent would make a supine submission to the effect that the OP filed by the husband was dismissed as early as on 01.04.2008 and similarly the OP filed by the wife was allowed. Be that as it may, inasmuch as according to the learned counsel, the respondent has not yet paid the arrears of maintenance amount, this Court is disposing of this civil revision petition on merits.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent herein would submit that the revision petitioner is working as a Computer Engineer in Tata Consultany Services earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month which fact was not denied by him; previously he was working in USA and such a man can very easily pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month to his wife and daughter and as such, no interference with the order passed by the lower Court is necessary.
6. A bare perusal of the order of the lower Court would exemplify and display that it took into consideration the status of the revision petitioner as that of a Computer Engineer. It is a common or garden principle of law that as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the husband is duty bound to disclose by producing documentary evidence as to what exactly he is earning, but in this case, curiously the husband has not chosen to produce any iota or shred of evidence relating to the actual income derived by him. Hence the Family Court was justified in inferring that the husband was earning sufficiently and that he could pay Rs.12,000/- per month towards interim maintenance to the respondent herein and her daughter. It is a trite proposition of law that the wife and the child of an individual are entitled to live in commensurate with the status of the person concerned. Indubitably and uncontrovertibly the revision petitioner is an MCA graduate and he worked in USA also and that now he is working as Computer Engineer in TCS and such a person could easily pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) per month towards interim maintenance to his wife and child and accordingly, no interference with the order passed by the lower Court is warranted. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
II Additional Judge, Family Court,
Chennai