S. Venkatesan Vs. J. Indumathi

.....had been granted to a person under the relevant provisions of the act, then to set right that mistake, the director should be enabled to exercise his power so as to effectuate the scheme of the act and to implement the purpose behind the act. the fact that the rule making authority has prescribed procedure in exercise of the powers under section 67 for making an application to the director does not mean that the suo motu power which is explicit in section 5(2) of the act is in any way curtailed or taken away. therefore, the contention of the respondent that making an application is sine qua non for invoking the power under section 5(2) of the act is not tenable. -- t.n. estates (abolition & conversion into ryotwari) act, 1948. sections 5(2) & 67; suo motu revisional powers held, on a bare reading of the provisions of section 5(2) of the act, it is clear that the power conferred on the director by section 5(2) to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the settlement officer is very wide. in the first place, the director need not necessarily be moved by any party in that behalf, and the power could be exercised either on an application by an aggrieved person or suo motu. for example, if the director comes to know that contrary to the scheme of the act or due to misrepresentation or fraud played, a patta had been granted to a person under the relevant provisions of the act, then to set right that mistake, the director should be enabled to exercise his power so as to effectuate the scheme of the act and to implement the purpose behind the act. the fact that the rule making authority has prescribed procedure in exercise of the powers under section 67 for making an application to the director does not mean that the suo motu power which is explicit in section 5(2) of the act is in any way curtailed or taken away. therefore, the contention of the respondent that making an application is sine qua non for invoking the power under section 5(2) of..........j.1. the order passed in i.a. no. 2282/2003 in f.c.o.p. no. 728/2003 on the file of the principal family court, chennai, is being challenged under this revision.2. the revision petitioner is the husband. the wife had filed i.a. no. 2282/ 2003 under sections 24 and 26 of hindu marriage act, 1955, seeking interim maintenance of rs. 10,000 for herself and rs. 5,000 for her minor daughter and rs. 7,500 towards litigation expenses. there is no dispute that she is unemployed. according to the respondent/wife, the income of her husband/revision petitioner herein is rs. 5,00,000 per year. but she has not produced any documents to substantiate this claim. on the other hand, the husband/revision petitioner has admitted in his counter that his annual income is rs. 50,000. so, on the basis of the admitted income, the learned family court judge has awarded an interim order of maintenance of rs. 1,500 per month for the wife and rs. 1,500 per month for her minor child and rs. 5,000 towards litigation expenses.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner represents that the petitioner/ husband has already paid the litigation expenses. this court has ordered previously interim maintenance of rs. 1,000 to the wife and rs. 500 to the minor child to be paid from january 2006 towards arrears of maintenance. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would represent that the same amount may be awarded as interim maintenance. but, taking into consideration the cost of living, this court is of the view that it will be very difficult for the wife, who is an unemployed, to maintain herself as well as the minor child with the meagre sum of rs. 3,000 per month. this court is of the view that the interim maintenance awarded by the learned trial judge is reasonable. the learned counsel for the respondent/wife would represent that o.p. no. 728/2002 was already dismissed for non-payment of the maintenance amount. but, she is not prepared to withdraw c.r.p. (pd) no. 229/2006. under such.....