IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.06.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN C.R.P. No.3693 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 E.N.Ramesh .. Petitioner/Petitioner/ Respondent Versus Kala .. Respondent/Respondent Petitioner The Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 19.07.2007 made in I.A.No.44 of 2007 in MOP.No. 27 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri. For Petitioner : M/s. V.Nicholas For Respondent : Mr.D. Shivakumaran ORDER The respondent in IA.No.44 of 2007 in MOP.No.27 of 2005 on the file of learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri is the petitioner in Civil Revision Petition. 2. The proceedings in MOP No. 27 of 2005 was instituted by the revision petitioner against the respondent for divorce under Section 13(i) and 13(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The said application was contested by the respondent by filing counter. 3. Subsequently, the respondent preferred an application in IA.No.44 of 2007 claiming interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month and a further sum of Rs.5000/- by way of legal expenses to defend the matrimonial proceedings. The said application was contested by the revision petitioner by filing counter wherein it was his case that the petitioner was having substantial income to maintain herself and as such it was not necessary for him to pay maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings. 3. The learned trial Judge on a consideration of the matter directed the revision petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month. The petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as legal expenses to defend the proceedings in MOP.27 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2005. Aggrieved by the said order, the unsuccessful respondent in the said Interlocutory Application has preferred this revision. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was a bonafide dispute about the income received by the petitioner and therefore without taking steps to ascertain the means of the petitioner to pay maintenance, the trial Judge erred in granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month. 5. The respondent is said to be employed in Indian Army. Even though, the revision petitioner has denied the averment that he was getting a monthly salary of Rs.8000/-, there was nothing to show the actual income received by the revision petitioner from the Army. There was no attempt made by the petitioner to produce his salary certificate to substantiate his contention regarding monthly income. The trial Judge has considered the matter on the basis of the available materials and arrived at the conclusion that the respondent is entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month. I do not find any error or illegality in the said order. The order passed by the learned Judge is purely discretionary intended to be in force during the pendency of the matrimonial proceedings. 6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, there will be no orders as to costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar mra To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri. + 1 cc to Mr.V.Nicholas,Advocate,SR.23516 + 1 cc to Mr.D.Shivakumaran,Advocate,SR.23460 C.R.P. No.3693 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 BV(CO) EM/21.7.09 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/