The duty of the appellant to provide financial support to the wife and daughter, and the requirement to prove the financial circumstances when seeking to resist a claim for maintenance.

K. Kalyanasundaram, J.

1. This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed challenging the order made by the III Additional Family Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.1033 of 2011 in O.P.No.726 of 2009, in and by which, the Family Court has directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month to the first respondent and Rs.3000/- to the second respondent as an interim alimony.

2. The appellant had filed a petition, in O.P.No.726 of 2009, before the III Additional Family Court, Chennai, for dissolution of the marriage held between him and the first respondent, on 31.8.2006. In the original petition, the respondents, who are wife and daughter of the appellant, had filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month for each of the respondents and also a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses, stating that the first respondent is living in a rented house and she does not have any independent source of income to meet out her expenses; that her daughter, the second respondent herein, is studying in Balavidhya Mandir Global School, at Perumbakkam, and that she needs money for the educational expenses of her daughter. The appellant had resisted the application, stating that his wife, the first respondent herein, is living with her parents and brothers, who are working in I.T. companies and earning huge amount and as such, the respondents are not entitled for any maintenance.

3. The learned III Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai, after considering the submissions made by the respective parties, has ordered interim maintenance, as stated above. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed.

4. Heard Mr. P. Gunaraj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Thenmozhi Shivaperumal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had submitted that the appellant is a student of Law College and is getting a salary of Rs.4000/-, for the service rendered by him on week ends and he has to maintain his old aged mother, with his meager income. The learned counsel further submitted that the first respondent is a Post Graduate with Maser Degree in M.A., and is working in CIBI Bhel Enterprises and getting a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-. Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for setting aside the impugned order.

6. It is not in dispute that the respondents are wife and daughter of the appellant, respectively. The only contention raised by the appellant is that the first respondent is a Post Graduate degree holder and she is working in a reputed industry and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. When the first respondent has categorically averred that she is unemployed and is suffering for her livelihood, it is the duty of the appellant to prove that she is in employment and earning sufficiently, for her living. The appellant has not produced any material to establish his contention. The learned III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, has considered the case of the appellant and has ordered only a sum of Rs.4,500/- to the first respondent and Rs.3000/- to the second respondent towards interim maintenance, which, in any event cannot be said to be an excessive one, in the present day economic condition.

7. In the light of our findings, we could see no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.