O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 10.02.2010, made in I.A.NO.3091 of 2009, in O.P.No.383 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai. 2.The petitioner had filed the original petition, in O.P.No.383 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai, for a decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and his wife Narayanee @ Kritika, on 20.05.2005, at Chennai, on the ground of cruelty. During the pendency of the Original Petition filed by the petitioner, the petitioners wife Narayanee @ Kritika had filed an Interlocutary Application, in I.A.No.3091 of 2009, to direct the petitioner husband to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/-, per month, as maintenance, to the petitioners minor daughter, Keerthana. By an order, dated 10.02.2010, the Principal Family Court, Chennai, had directed the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/-, per month, towards the maintenance of the minor child, Keerthana, from the date of the petition, till the disposal of the original petition.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that the order of the Principal Family Court, Chennai, dated 10.02.2010, made in I.A.NO.3091 of 2009, is erroneous and illegal. The learned Principal Judge had failed to appreciate the fact that the wife of the petitioner, Narayanee @ Kritika, had suppressed her independent income, while praying for an order of interim maintenance. Further, the learned Judge, ought to have appreciated the settled legal position that an employed wife, having an independent source of income, cannot maintain an application for interim maintenance, either for herself or for her minor child. The interlocutory application for maintenance had been filed by the wife of the petitioner, only with the malafide intention of harassing the petitioner and to drag on the proceedings, in the original petition, pending on the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai. The learned Judge had failed to take into consideration the undertaking given by the petitioner that he is ready and willing to take custody of the minor child. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner had also stated that the petitioner is not employed on regular basis as he is only working in leave vacancies, arising out of unforeseen leave of the employees, in the project work carried out by the companies. The learned Judge of the Principal Family Court, Chennai, ought to have taken into consideration that the wife of the petitioner has been earning an amount of Rs.85,000/-, per month. 6.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the Principal Family Court, Chennai, by its order, dated 10.02.2010, had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-, per month, as maintenance, only to his minor child, Keerthana, the respondent herein and not for his wife. Further, the petitioner had not filed any application for the custody of his minor child, Keerthana, nor had he filed a petition for visitation rights. Once the petitioner is found to be an abled bodied person,he is bound to pay the maintenance to his minor child, as held in Rousseau Mitra Vs. Chandana Mitra (Shrimati), II (2004) DMC 735 and in N.Sree Ramudu Vs. N.Lahari, I (2005) DMC 566.
7. In reply, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that, inspite of the petitioner filing his income tax returns showing his gross total income, the learned judge, Principal Family court,Chennai, had not considered the same, before passing the order, dated 10.02.2010, in I.A.No.3091 of 2009. He had stated the claim of the wife, for alimony, should be rejected if she has an independent source of income. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions. 1.Kumaresan Vs. Aswathi 2002-3-L.W.594
2.Manokaran alias Ramamoorthy Vs.M.Devaki
AIR 2003 MADRAS 212
3.Amutha @ Symaladevi Vs. K.Thirumoorthy @ Thirumalaisamy
(2009) 7 MLJ 1050
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the order passed by the learned Judge, Principal Family Court, Chennai, dated, 10.02.2010, may be setaside and the learned Judge may be directed to dispose of the Interlocutory Application, in I.A.No.3091 of 2009, taking into consideration, the income tax returns of the petitioner.
8. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to set aside the order passed by the Principal Family Court, Chennai, on 10.02.2010, in I.A.No.3091 of 2009, in O.P.No.383 of 2007. There is nothing shown on behalf of the petitioner, for this Court to come to the conclusion that the order passed by the learned Judge, Principal Family Court, Chennai, is arbitrary, erroneous and illegal. Sufficient evidence was available for the Principal Family Court, Chennai, to come to its conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.10,000/-, as maintenance, to his minor daughter, Keerthana. Even if it could be shown that the income tax returns of the petitioner had been filed before the Principal Family Court, Chennai, at the time of the filing of the Interlocutory Application, in I.A.No.3091 of 2009,the petitioner has not been in a position to substantiate his claim that they had not been taken into consideration before the order, dated 10.02.2010, had been passed. As such this Civil revision Petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
