The court established that the entitlement to interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is based on the financial circumstances of the parties involved.

This memorandum of Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and executable order dated 04.12.2014, made in I.A.No.422 of 2013 in H.M.O.P.No.130 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The petitioner is the respondent/husband in H.M.O.P.No.130 of 2010 and the first respondent/wife is the plaintiff in the said petition. The first respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.130 of 2010 for restitution of conjugal rights and also filed an application in I.A.No.422 of 2013, for interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/-per month for herself and for the minor daughter, second respondent. According to the first respondent, the petitioner is working as a Scientist “C” in Defence Research & Development Organization, BHEL Complex, Jallahalli, Bangalore and is earning Rs.70,000/-and is owning number of house sites and ancestral properties. The petitioner filed M.C.No.2675 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court, Bangalore for divorce, which was transferred to the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli, as per the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Further, as per the instructions of the petitioner, the first respondent went to Bangalore and the second respondent was admitted in K.V.No.1 School, Jallahalli, Bangalore. The petitioner did not meet the expenses of the first respondents' stay at Bangalore. The petitioner paid only one year school fees of the second respondent. The first respondent has availed loans to meet out the expenses of house rent, school expenses of the second respondent and other expenses at Bangalore for their stay. In the circumstances, she prayed for Rs.30,000/-per month as interim maintenance.

3. The petitioner denied all the averments of the first respondent and stated that the first respondent is working as Assistant Professor Grade-II in Acharya Institute of Technology, Bangalore and is earning Rs.55,000/-per month. The second respondent is not a party in the main petition and hence, the minor child is not entitled to any maintenance. The petitioner contended that the first respondent is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the petitioner, as she is having independent income.

4. The learned Judge considering all the facts and materials on record, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-per month and Rs.5,000/-per month to the first respondent and the second respondent respectively. Against the said order dated 04.12.2014, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Judge failed to consider that,

1. the first respondent is working as an Assistant Professor Grade-II in Acharya Institute of Technology, Bangalore, and is earning Rs.55,000/-per month as income of her own;

2. the first respondent is also entitled to contribute equally for the maintenance of the second respondent. The petitioner is regularly paying the school fees of the second respondent;

3. the learned Judge failed to consider Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and erred in granting maintenance quoting versus of Manusmirithi, without considering the parameters laid down under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955;

4. the learned Judge failed to consider that income of the husband alone is not a criteria for granting maintenance;

5. the learned Judge failed to consider the documents filed by the petitioner and erred in holding that no document was marked.

6. The first respondent filed counter affidavit and denied the various averments made by the petitioner. According to the first respondent, she was working on consolidated salary and was getting Rs.15,000/-per month. Subsequently, she is not working and she is not having any independent income. She is depending on her parents for her day-to-day expenses and it is very difficult to maintain herself and her minor child without any income. The first respondent also denied that she is having many ancestral properties in Trichy with rental income and also stated that she is only maintaining t