High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 03 MAD CK 0058

G. Kavitha, Priyadarshani and Suriya vs P.N. Kumar

Madras High Court · Decided on 4 March 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. Jaichandran, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.R.P. (PD) No. 824 of 2010 and M.P. No. 1 of 2009

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 364 words

M. Jaichandran, J.—This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order, dated 27.10.2009, made in the Interlocutory

Application, in I.A. No. 46 of 2009, in Hindu Matrimonial Original Petition No. 50 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Sub Court,

Gobichettipalayam.

2.

It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court had failed to note that the respondent is running a mosaic

company and earning a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, per month. It has also been stated that the marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent

has been admitted. While so ,the trial Court had committed an error in ordering only Rs. 1,100/- to the petitioners, as interim maintenance .The

trial Court had ordered Rs. 500/- to the first petitioner and a sum of Rs. 300/- each to the 2nd and the 3rd petitioners herein, as interim

maintenance, though the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, per month.

3.

He had further submitted that the order, dated 27.10.2009, of the trial Court, made in Interlocutory Application No. 46 of 2009, is improper.

The trial Court in its order, dated 27.10.2009, in the Interlocutory Application No. 46 of 2009, had found that the petitioners had not been in a

position to substantiate the claim that the respondent is earning Rs. 20,000/-, per month, by running a mosaic company. No evidence, whatsoever,

has been shown on behalf of the petitioners to establish the fact that the respondent has been earning a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, per month, as claimed

by the petitioners. In such circumstances, the trial Court had passed an order, dated 27.10.2009, to direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.

500/- to the first petitioner and a sum of Rs. 300/- each to the 2nd and the 3rd petitioners, as interim maintenance, per month. As such, this Court

does not find sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court, dated 27.10.2009, made in Interlocutory Application No. 46

of 2009, in Hindu Matrimonial Original Petition No. 50 of 2008.

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.