P. Bhavadasan, J.
1. This revision is directed against the interim order dated 14.7.2011 in C.M.P. 1300 of 2011 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ernakulam as confirmed by the lower appellate court.
2. The application was one under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month.
3. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent before the trial court is stated to have taken place on 15.9.1996 and they were residing as husband and wife thereafter. Various other allegations regarding the receipt of the gold ornaments and cash are also made in the petition, which are not very relevant for the present purpose. Petitioner complains of cruelty at the hands of the inmates of the house of the first respondent and also alleged that she was being harassed asking her to get money from her house. It is alleged that the first respondent abandoned her at the bus stop on the way to her sister's house and thereafter demanded money for taking back her to his house. Then the first respondent filed a divorce petition. Various other allegations are seen made in the petition.
4. Respondent resisted the petition. He denied all the allegations in the petition. The complaint of the respondent was that the intention of the petitioner was to force the respondent to abandon his parents and to live separately, for which he was not amenable. It is also contended that the petitioner was working as a Supervisor in a garment unit and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The further contention was that the petitioner also earns Rs.3,000/- per month from the landed property. Therefore, it was contended that she does not need maintenance to be provided by the first respondent to survive. Various proceedings between the parties are also seen referred to in the objection filed by the respondent.
5. The trial court on an evaluation of the materials before it, came to the conclusion that even though the respondent before the trial court contended that the petitioner has sufficient means of income, there was absolutely no evidence produced to establish the said fact. It is also noticed that the respondent had not produced any evidence to show as to what exactly is the income derived by him when the petitioner alleged that he is earning Rs.30,000/- per month. The court below also noticed that in the objection filed by the first respondent there is no specific denial of the allegation made by the petitioner. However, taking into consideration the profession of the first respondent and taking the monthly income of the first respondent as Rs.10,000/-, the trial court court awarded Rs.4,000/- as interim maintenance to the petitioner before the trial court.
6. The said order was challenged before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court found that the amount awarded is reasonable and no grounds are made out to interfere with the same.
7. One has to remember that the challenge is to the interim interim maintenance awarded in favour of the petitioner before the trial court. The records would indicate that the relationship between the parties is strained and the respondent had filed a petition before the Family Court, Ernakulam for divorce. The respondent was unable to show that the petitioner has got any independent means of income to support herself and that she need not depend on the first respondent for maintenance. The findings are based on appreciation of the materials available then on record and the granting of Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance does not appear to be on the high side in view of the cost of living and other aspects.
8. As of now, this court finds no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the trial court as confirmed by the lower appellate court. There is no merit in this revision and it is only to be dismissed. I do so. However, it is directed that the trial court may make every endeavour to dispose of the matter untramelled by the observations contained in the order of the said court while disposing of the interim maintenance application and the observations of the lower appellate court and this court while disposing of this revision.
This revision petition is disposed of as above.