The court considered the financial capacity of the parties and their obligations in determining the maintenance amount under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

ORDER

The brief facts of the case is as follows:-

1. The respondent herein / wife had filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.77 of 2005, on the file of Family Court, Coimbatore, against her husband, the revision petitioner herein, stating that she had married him on 31.08.2001 as per Hindu Customs and Rites at Vinayaka Temble, Echanari. The marriage expenses of Rs.50,000/- was incurred by the parents of the wife. The wife further stated that at the time of marriage, 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments had been given. The revision petitioner had already married one Nageswari and through her he had two children.

2. The wife further stated that her husband did not show any love and affection towards her. Further, her husband always loved his children through his first wife. She further stated that her husband had demanded a scooter from her parents. Her parents were unable to provide the same. On one occasion, her health had been severely affected, while she was with her parents. During that time, her husband did not care about her. After her health became normal, she came to the matrimonial home. Her in-laws prevented her from entering into the house and closed the house. Thereafter, she levelled a case before the All Women Wing Police Station, Podanur against her mother-in-law. Thereafter, she had been deserted by her husband. Hence, the case has been filed against her husband and she has claimed a monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/-from her husband, who is working at a private company as a moulder and earning Rs.6,000/- per month.

3. The husband had filed a counter statement and resisted the maintenance case. The husband admitted the second marriage and it was solemnized on 31.08.2001. He further stated that the respondent herein is five years elder to him. Therefore, her mother had contacted his mother several times for arrangement of marriage to the respondent wife. Accordingly, the marriage was performed. He further stated that he never demanded any dowry amount or scooter as alleged by his wife. Further he had not harassed his wife. He further denied the allegation of his wife that her health had been affected. The respondent / wife had levelled a false complaint against his mother. Immediately, after marriage, she lived happily with the revision petitioner for one week. Thereafter, she told the children of his first wife that both of them were born to some one else and hence she would not take care of either of them. Further she had asked the revision petitioner to drive the children out of her home. The same was not acceded to by the husband. Thereafter, she deserted the matrimonial home. He further stated that his second wife had tortured his first wife's children by pouring hot water on them. His wife had always hated and harassed his first wife's children.

4. The husband further stated that her father is running a finance business and is also a partner in a leather firm. His wife is also working there and earning Rs.4,000/-per month. Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the maintenance petition.

5. On considering the averments of both the parties, the learned judge had framed two issues viz.,

"(i) Whether the wife is entitled to get maintenance from her husband and if so, what is the quantum of maintenance?

(ii) To what relief is the petitioner entitled to?"

6. P.W.1 / wife had marked seven documents viz., Ex.P1-voter list, Ex.P2-marriage receipt, Ex.P3-complaint receipt issued by police station, Ex.P4-advocate notice, Ex.P5-acknowledgment card, Ex.P6-husband's reply notice and Ex.P7-Nageswari's scan report. She had adduced evidence stating that she is the second wife of her husband and the marriage was solemnized on 31.08.2001. His first wife expired due to brain fever, and she had given birth to two children. After marriage, she lived at the matrimonial home, as a joint family. Subsequently, difference of opinion had arisen between them. He had no issues through her. She further stated that she had lodged