1. Inveighing the order dated 07.11.2008, passed in I.A.No.12 of 2008 in HMOP No.16 of 2006 by the Sub Court, Panruti, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. Heard both sides.
3. A 'resume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:
The revision petitioner filed HMOP No.16 of 2006 in Sub Court, Panruti, seeking divorce as against the respondent herein. The respondent herein, viz., R.Nalini @ Kuppu filed I.A.No.12 of 2008 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance. In that application, the husband has not filed any counter, whereupon, the lower Court passed order awarding interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) per month with effect from November 2008. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this revision has been filed on the ground that the lower Court was not justified in its conclusion as though the revision petitioner was earning a huge amount in foreign country and that without assigning any valid reason, such interim maintenance was awarded.
4. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner presented the typed set of papers enclosing the copy of the salary certificate issued by the Foreign employer of the revision petitioner, and the same would run thus: "We are pleased to certify that Mr.Perumal Dakshina Moorthy, Indian National holder of Passport No.E 5822557 is employed with us as Mechanic Labour. His gross monthly salary is QR 600/- (Qatari Riyal Six Hundred only) This certificate is issued at the request of the employee without prejudice and any liability on the company." Subsequently, the same counsel presented the exchange rates also. For 600 Quatari Rial, the equivalent Indian rupee would be 600 X 12.8638 and if the equivalent is rounded to Rs.13/- for the purpose of this case, it comes to Rs.7,800/-.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the order of the lower Court is illegal and the revision petitioner cannot be compelled to pay such huge interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) per month, as the revision petitioner is bound to maintain himself and also his other family members.
6. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the order passed by the Court below is quite reasonable and the husband even as per him a sum of Rs.7,800/- per month, could pay half of the amount as maintenance to his wife.
7. The point for consideration is as to whether the order of the lower Court has to be interfered with on the ground that it is illegal in addition to it being niggard of sound reasoning?
8. A mere poring over and perusal of the order of the lower Court would demonstrate and display that the lower Court with the avowed object to render speedy justice, so to say in the interest of justitia pie ponderous simply ordered as though a sum of Rs.4,000/- should be paid by the revision petitioner in favour of the respondent on the assumption that the revision petitioner being a worker working in Doha Qatar might be earning a huge sum. Even though I cannot find fault with such bona fide attitude of the lower Court, yet I would observe that objectivity is lacking in the order. The typed set of papers as well as the documents presented before me as set out supra would display and convey, exemplify and expatiate that at present the revision petitioner is only earning a sum of Rs.7,800/- per month and he has to maintain himself and his other family members also and in such a case, awarding a sum of Rs.4,000/- out of Rs.7,800/- would be on the higher side and I would like to reduce the monthly maintenance from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.3,000/-. No doubt, I am fully aware of the fact that the respondent armed with this order should not try to protract the proceedings and continue to obtain interim maintenance. Wherefore, I would also direct that the lower Court shall do well to see that the H.M.O.P. itself is disposed of within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The interim maintenance as stood modified by this order shall be effective from November 2008 onwards till disposal of H.M.O.P. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.