IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:16.02.2009 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(PD)No.2167 of 2004 and C.M.P.No.20834 of 2004 R.Vasu ... Petitioner vs. 1. Manjula 2. G.Vasu ... Respondents Civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee in I.A.No.53 of 2004 in O.P.No.139 of 2002 dated 07.10.2004. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Parthasarathy For Respondents : No appearance O R D E R Inveighing the order dated 07.10.2004, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee in I.A.No.53 of 2004 in O.P.No.139 of 2002, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Despite printing the name of the respondent, no one represented. 3. The pith and marrow, the warp and woof of the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: The revision petitioner filed HMOP No.139 of 2002 as against the wife/the first respondent herein Manjula seeking divorce on the ground of her alleged adulterous link adultery with the second respondent herein. During the pendency of the O.P.,the first respondent herein, Manjula filed I.A.No.53 of 2004 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance. After hearing both sides, the lower Court awarded interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month payable by the husband to the wife and also litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/-. Being https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ disconcerted and aggrieved by the order of the lower Court, this revision has been filed on various grounds inter alia thus: The lower Court ignored the fact that the wife is living in adultery with the second respondent and that the first respondent herself admitted the said fact before the police; in such a case, she is not entitled to any maintenance and accordingly he prays for setting aside the order of the lower Court and consequently dismissing the I.A. 4. A bare perusal of the order of the lower Court including the typed set of papers would demonstrate and indicate that the relationship between the revision petitioner herein and the first respondent is admitted as one that of husband and wife. However, the husband seeks divorce on the ground of adultery. The lower Court was right in observing that only after conducting enquiry in the HMOP, a decision could be taken relating to the alleged plea of adultery as put forth by the husband and that at the time of considering the application under Section 24 of the said Act, the plea of adultery cannot be decided. 5. At this juncture, my mind is redolent and reminiscent of the following decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2003)10 SCC 228 [Amarjit Kaur vs. Harbhajan Singh]. An excerpt from it would run thus: "8. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 empowers the court in any proceeding under the Act, if it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of any one of them order the other party to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding and monthly maintenance as may seem to be reasonable during the proceeding, having regard to also the income of both the petitioner and the respondent." 6. As such, it is crystal clear that while considering the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, relating to awarding of interim maintenance and costs, the main plea of the husband as against the wife that wife committed adultery cannot be probed into. The lower Court correctly took into consideration the factum of the financial wherewithal of the husband and the wife. There is nothing to indicate that the wife has been earning significantly so as to keep her body and soul together; to keep the wolf from the door; to keep the pot boiling; to meet her basic creature comforts and to meet her expenses towards food, shelter and clothing. However, the husband has not come forward to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ produce the salary certificate. As per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the husband was expected to disclose precisely the facts within his knowledge. Here despite the respondent was capable of producing his salary certificate, nevertheless he failed to do so. It is an admitted fact that he has been working as Water Tank Watchman in Alandur Municipality, Chennai 16. Hence the lower Court was justified in inferring that the monthly income of the husband was Rs.4,800/- per month. 7. It is a trite proposition of law that the wife is entitled to live in commensurate with the status of the husband and accordingly if viewed, awarding a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month, by no stretch of imagination could be dubbed and labelled, described or portrayed as excessive. 8. It is a common or garden principle of law that an adult lady to meet her requirements towards food, shelter and clothing might at the least require a sum of Rs.30/- per day and if it is worked out, per month it comes to Rs.900/-. Towards travelling expenses and medical expenses, additionally she might require a sum of Rs.100/- per month. As such awarding of Rs.1,000/- by the lower Court as interim maintenance cannot be found fault with. Rs.2,000/- awarded towards litigation expenses is also found to be very reasonable taking into consideration the present day cost of litigation. I could see no merit in the order passed by the lower Court and accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To The Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee • 1 cc to Mr. S. Parthasarathy, Advocate SR No.6350 KA(CO) SR/26.2.2009 C.R.P.(PD)No.2167 of 2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/