The main legal point established is the husband's obligation to maintain his wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the consideration of the wife's basic requirements, the husband's financial status, and the standard of living in determining interim maintenance.

Inveighing the order dated 14.08.2007 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet in I.A.No.95 of 2007 in HMOP No.38 of 2006, this civil revision petition is focussed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondent.

3. A summarization and summation of the facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:

The respondent/husband herein filed HMOP No.38 of 2006 seeking divorce under Section 13(1) (1)(A) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. During the pendency of the said HMOP, the wife/revision petitioner herein filed I.A.No.95 of 2007 under Section 24 of the Act seeking interim maintenance in a sum of Rs.3,000/-per month and she also prayed for awarding a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards cost of litigation. The lower Court after hearing both sides awarded interim maintenance in a sum of Rs.250/- per month payable by the husband to the wife and the prayer for cost was dismissed. Challenging the said order of the lower Court, this revision is focussed on various grounds.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would develop his argument that even though there are enough circumstances found exemplified as per records, nevertheless the lower Court without any rhyme or reason awarded only a meagre maintenance of Rs.250/-per month, which by any standard would be inadequate for a lady to keep her body and soul together.

5. To say the least, the order of the lower Court is far from satisfactory. The lower Court having chosen to correctly and appositely observe that the husband is bound to maintain his wife, by toiling and moiling like anything, fell into error in awarding a meagre sum of Rs.250/- per month as interim maintenance.

5. I am at a loss to understand as to how the lower Court Judge during the year 2007 developed the thought of awarding only a sum of Rs.250/-per month to a lady as interim maintenance payable by her husband. Such awarding of a sum of Rs.250/-per month, in my opinion, tantamounts to humiliating the revision petitioner to the maximum extent possible.

6. A bare perusal of the averments in the HMOP would demonstrate and display that even as per the version of the husband, he married the revision petitioner herein on the understanding that she would look after the house of the husband and also supervise his landed properties. An excerpt from para No.3 is extracted here under for ready reference:

7. It is therefore crystal clear that the husband admitted that he is having a house and landed properties and in such a case, it is not known as to how the respondent could contend that he is not having property at all so as to pay interim maintenance to the wife.

8. In para No.5 of the counter filed by him in I.A.No.95 of 2007, he simply denied the averments made by the wife relating to the financial status of the husband. But, the husband as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act was expected to disclose and divulge his financial status and more specifically in this case, his right over the properties referred to in the O.P. When the husband himself admitted that he had house and landed properties in the petition, then, it is for him to explain as to what amount of interest he is having in those properties. But, on the other hand, he simply denied the averments made by the wife in the Interim application claiming maintenance, relating to his financial status. The lower court could have drawn inference that the husband possesses enough income yielding properties and resources. In the facts and circumstances of this case, as discussed supra, the relation ship between the petitioner and the husband is an admitted one and in such a case, the husband, de hors, the merits of his case in the HMOP, has to pay maintenance to his wife and that too, when there is nothing to indicate that the wife is having sufficient income to keep her body