Wife has no source of independent income for her.

The husband is the revision petitioner and the respondent is the wife. The revision is filed challenging the correctness of the maintenance amount ordered to the respondent payable by her husband, the revision petitioner in I.A.No.1405 of 2001 in O.P.No.1327 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai, as per order dated 30.4.2004.

2. The revision petitioner filed the main O.P.No.1327 of 2001 for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The said petition was filed in August, 2001. The main O.P. was resisted in the counter filed by the respondent, the wife in August, 2002.

3. During the pendency of the main O.P., the respondent/wife filed the petition I.A.No.1405 of 2001 on 15.10.2001 claiming maintenance of Rs.6,500/- per month, besides Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses.

4. The Family Court considering the objections raised in the counter and also the Exs.P-1 to P-8 marked on the side of the respondent/wife and Exs.R-1 to R-5 marked on the side of the revision petitioner/husband, arrived at the conclusion that the respondent/wife is entitled to Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of the petition I.A.No.1405 of 2001, besides Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses, in view of the fact, the revision petitioner/husband was paying Rs.6,500/- per month till June, 2001 towards maintenance to his wife, the respondent and to the son by name Suhail born to them. The order is under challenge in this revision.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/husband mainly attacked the order of the Family Court that the maintenance as fixed by the Family Court is on the higher side. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the respondent has failed to prove the income earned by the revision petitioner and in fixing the maintenance amount, the Family Court has not considered the income earned by the respondent and that the respondent travelled abroad eight times and also not considered that the respondent acted in the Tamil Film "Anbae Sivam". The learned counsel further submitted that despite the application filed by the revision petitioner for production of the income tax records relating to the years 2002-2004, the Family Court rejected the said petition as belated and therefore, the Family Court is not correct in fixing the maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent on the basis that Rs.150/- per day is required and monthly Rs.4,500/- to which a sum of Rs.500/- is added to meet her unforeseen exigencies. Finally, the learned counsel submitted that in any event, the Family Court should have fixed the maintenance payable only from the date of the order and not from the date of the filing of the petition I.A.No.1405 of 2001. The learned counsel also relied on the following decisions:-

(1) Vinay Kumar – vs. - Smt.Mithileshbai reported in 1995 Vol.II, Divorce and Matrimonial Cases 133(Madhya Pradesh High Court), in which it is held thus:-

"The maintenance allowance is normally granted from the date of the order. A special reason is, however, required to be recorded for granting maintenance allowance from the date of the filing of the application."

and it is further held thus:-

"In the instance case, no special reason has been assigned by the Trial Judge for granting the interim maintenance allowance to the non-applicant from the date of the filing of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act."

(2) Smt.Jasbir Kaur Sehgal – vs. - District Judge, Dehradun and others, reported in A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 3397, in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:-

"The question then arises as to from which date the wife would be entitled to claim the enhanced amount of maintenance pendente lite. If wife has no source of income it is the obligation of the husband to maintain her and also children of the marriage on the basis of the provisions c