P. Soloman Sukumar vs Smt. Latha Madhuri on 4 August, 1997

    P. Soloman Sukumar vs Smt. Latha Madhuri on 4/8/1997

ORDER

   M.N. Rao, J.

   1. Against the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad in LA. No.
806 of 1996 in O.P.No. 1323 of 1995, allowing the application of the respondent-
wife for interim maintenance, this Civil Revision Petition was filed.

   2. The Court below granted Rs. 1000/- towards interim maintenance of the
respondent - wife, Rs. 500/- towards the interim maintenance to the minor child
and Rs. 600/- towards expenses for each day's hearing and Rs. 2,000/- towards
legal expenses in conducting the proceedings of the case. The wife resides in
Palakol in West Godavari District and the husband is a resident of Secunderabad
and both are Christians by religion.

   3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner - husband says that petitioner's
monthly income is only Rs. 5,000/- and under Section 36 of the Indian Divorce
Act, the alimony granted pendente lite should not be in excess of one fifth of
the husband's average net income for three preceding years and that there is no
provision in the Act for granting interim maintenance to the minor child.

   4. We are not inclined to agree. The monthly salary of the petitioner
-husband, according to the plea taken by the respondent - wife is Rs. 7,000/-.
No evidence was placed before the Court below to show that petitioner -
husband's income is only Rs. 5,000/- but not Rs. 7,000/-. Section 43 of the
Indian Divorce Act, inter alia, confers power on the Court to make interim
orders with respect to maintenance of "minor children, the marriage of whose
parents is the subject matter of the suit". We are of the view that this
specific power conferred by Section 43 of the Act is in addition to the power
conferred on the Court by Section 36 to grant alimony pendente lite. As the
respondent - wife is residing in Palakol, West Godavari District, she had to
incur considerable expenditure to attend the Court at Hyderabad and taking this
factor into consideration, the Family Court granted Rs. 600/- towards expenses
for each adjournment. Having regard to the specific provisions contained in
Sections 36 and 43 of the Act and there being no contra evidence to reject the
plea of the wife that the monthly income of the petitioner husband was Rs.
7,000/-, we affirm the order of the Court below and consequently dismiss the
Revision Petition. No costs.