Full Judgment
G. Rajasuria, J.
1. Anim-adverting upon the order dated 3.6.2008 passed in I.A. No. 1996 of 2006 in O.P. No. 2680 of 2005 by the I Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai, this revision petition is filed.
2. The nutshell facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:
The revision petitioner is the husband and the respondent is his wife. The former filed FCOP No. 2680 of 2005 before the First Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai, for divorce. During the pendency of the said O.P., the wife filed LA. No. 1996 of 2006 seeking interim maintenance, by invoking Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The trial Court awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month from the date of I.A. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision petition is focussed by the husband on various grounds:
3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would develop his argument to the effect that the lower Court was not justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month by ignoring the deductions effected from the salary of the petitioner/husband.
4. A bare perusal of the order of the lower Court would indicate and exemplify that the petitioner/husband, as on the date of filing of the I.A. for interim maintenance by the wife, was receiving a monthly salary of Rs. 10,739/-. The contention of the petitioner/husband was that his take home salary was only Rs. 2,405/- and he could not pay maintenance as claimed by his wife. Whereas, the Court felt that a sum of Rs. 3,562/- which the petitioner/husband was contributing towards Thrift Society should not be excluded from calculating his disposable income.
5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/husband would try to torpedo such a view by pointing out that when the petitioner/husband was not in receipt of such a sum of Rs. 3,562/-, the lower Court was not justified in including the said amount in his disposable income.
6. I could see no infirmity in the order of the lower Court. Simply because the husband had incurred some loans from certain societies and repaying the same it cannot be held that those amounts should not be treated as earnings for the purpose of awarding maintenance. Only statutory deductions could be excluded from assessing the disposable income of the husband. In this case the lower Court correctly has taken into account the sum of Rs. 3,562/- along with the take home salary of Rs. 2,405/- and ultimately assessed the disposable income of the husband and awarded the maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month, which by any standard, cannot be stated to be exorbitant and excessive: in fact, it comes to, only awarding a sum of Rs. 50/- per day to a lady, who is entitled to live incommensurate with the status of her husband, who at that time was a clerk in the Civil Supplies Department. Hence, no interference with the order of the lower Court is warranted.
7. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/husband would make an extempore submission that there is a criminal revision pending against the order of maintenance award, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate concerned and this Court, in the interim order directed the revision petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 750/-per month to the respondent/wife and there should not be double payment.
8. In View of the above, it is made clear that the sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month awarded by the Family Court shall be inclusive of the sum of Rs. 750/- per month as directed to be paid toy the husband to the wife. Accordingly, the arrears should be calculated and payment should be made.
9. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would highlight that the lower Court was not justified in awarding cost of Rs. 3000/- payable by the husband to the wife to meet the litigation expenses and by any standard it is excessive.
10. I am of the view that taking into account the present day cost of litigation, such awarding of Rs. 3000/- payable by the husband to the wife cannot be termed as an excessive one and no interference under that count also is warranted.
In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.