Kuruba Kishor Kumar vs K.Umadevi @ Devi

Battu Devanand, J

This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Order dated 26-08-2022 in I.A.No.78 of 2022 in HMOP No.48 of 2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the material available on record.

The Petitioner is the Petitioner and the respondent is the Respondent in HMOP No.48 of 2020.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to disputes between him and the respondent, he filed HMOP No.48 of 2020 before the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty, for dissolution of marriage. In HMOP No.48 of 2020, the respondent filed I.A.No.78 of 2022 for grant of interim maintenance along with legal expenses. The trial Court, on erroneous consideration of the facts, allowed the said Petition directing the petitioner to pay Rs.20,000/- per month towards maintenance on or before 5th of every month from the date of petition and Rs.30,000/-towards legal expenses. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Order passed by the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The trial Court erred in so far as directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent towards monthly interim maintenance without taking into consideration that the respondent has left the company of the petitioner without valid reason and thereby the petitioner filed the said HMOP. The trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent/wife prima facie failed to establish that she has got valid reasons to leave the company of her matrimonial home and thereby entitling to seek interim maintenance from the petitioner. The trial Court erred in not taking into consideration the financial capacity of the petitioner while deciding the quantum of interim maintenance to be paid to the petitioner since as per Pay Slip for the month of January, 2022, there are total recoveries of Rs.48,912/- out of Gross Pay of Rs.51,322/-. Therefore, the petitioner prayed to allow the present Civil Revision Petition.

Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears the petitioner filed HMOP No.48 of 2020 for grant of divorce. Thereafter, the respondent filed I.A.No.78 of 2022 for grant of maintenance. The trial Court granted Rs.20,000/- per month towards maintenance. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is working as Travelling Ticket Examiner and getting gross salary of Rs.51,322/-. The contention of the petitioner is that he is having old aged father and younger sister, who deserted by her husband and her children. Though the petitioner is contending that he is having younger sister, who deserted by her husbnand and her children, he being the husband of the respondent, is having responsibility to look after his wife and children than to look his sister and her children. If his sister had no nobody to look after as submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner can as well look after his sister also, but not by leaving his wife and children to their fate. Since the petitioner is getting more than Rs.50,000/- as salary, the respondent is entitled to get maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month as per the status of her husband towards maintenance of herself and her daughter. Therefore, granting an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month towards the maintenance to the respondent would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought in the present Civil Revision Petition.

Therefore, this Court do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.78 of 2022 in HMOP No.48 of 2020 and accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere into the Order passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this case shall stand closed.