1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:15.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.507 of 2011 & M.P(MD)NO.1 of 2011 C.Kotaichamy ..Petitioner/Respondent/Petitioner Vs. S.Muthuramalakshmi ..Respondent/Petitioner/Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to allow the revision and set aside the Order dated 02.08.2010 passed in I.A.No.55 of 2010 in H.M.O.P.58 of 2008 on the file of the learned sub-Court, Sankarankoil, Tirunelveli District. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balakarthick ORDER The petitioner has been filed against the order of maintenance passed by the trial Court granting a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards maintenance of the respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he filed H.M.O.P. for divorce against the respondent. In the said proceedings I.A.No.55 of 2010 was taken out for maintenance. The trial Court after appreciation of facts and evidence granted a sum of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) towards maintenance. The said order is challenged before this Court. 3. Mr.S.Balakarthick, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the order contending that there is no evidence available before the trial Court regarding the income of the petitioner. In the absence of any proof of the income of the petitioner, the trial Court has erroneously granted a sum of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) per month. He further submitted that the petitioner is only a Homoeopathy Doctor and he has not getting much income and that apart his daughter is living with him in view of the fact that the respondent is mentally retarded. 4. It is seen that the respondent is the wife of the petitioner and H.M.O.P is pending before the trial Court and the respondent is not living with the petitioner and she is living with her mother. Even as per the petitioner, the respondent is a mentally retarded https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 lady and as a result the petitioner underwent torture. It is the moral as well as legal duty of the husband to maintain the wife especially it is more so when it is alleged that the wife is mentally retarded. When the petitioner alleges the respondent is mentally imbalanced, he has to take care of his wife. If she went to her mother's place, the petitioner should have called upon the respondent and he should have maintained her. Even if the respondent is living with her mother, it is impossible for the alleged mentally retarded lady to maintain herself. 5. In the counter affidavit filed before the trial Court the petitioner contended that the respondent's mother-in-law is a having number of properties and she is looking after the respondent. The said fact is in foreign to the issue and it is not relevant at all as it is the duty of the petitioner to maintain the respondent. Though Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) sought for only a sum of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) was granted. In the absence of any appeal or revision by the respondent this Court is not in a position to enhance the said amount. It is common knowledge that it is very difficult to live with Rs.3,000/- per month that too a person who is alleged to be mentally retarded as she has to necessarily take treatment and spend for medicines. 6. For the reasons stated above, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Subordinate Judge, Sankarankoil, Tirunelveli District. C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.507 of 2011 15.03.2011 gsr NSV/28.3.11/2P/2C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/