The determination of interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is based on the income of both parties, their capacity to pay, and the factual situation, including caregiving responsibilities.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 23.04.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in H.M.O.P No.74 of 2020 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ambasamudram.)

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/husband against the order dated 23.04.2022 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ambasamudram in I.A.No.01 of 2021 in H.M.O.P.No.74 of 2020. In the said order, the learned Sub Judge has granted interim maintenance to the respondent/wife at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month to be paid by the petitioner/husband from the date of petition till the date of disposal of the divorce petition. In addition the petitioner/husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- for litigation expenses.

2. Brief facts leading this revision are as under:-

(i) Both the revision petitioner and the respondent got married on 22.11.2015 and they were living together. Thereafter, the relationship between the parties got strained in the year 2020. The respondent/wife filed a divorce petition in HMOP No.74 of 2020 on the grounds of cruelty and infertility. During pendency of HMOP, the respondent/wife filed a petition in I.A.No.1 of 2021 for interim maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, claiming interim maintenance pendente lite of Rs.20,000/- and also sum of Rs.10,000/- to meet litigation expenses during the pendency of the divorce petition. In the said application, the respondent/wife pleaded that she was having no source of income to maintained herself and that she is dependent upon her parent for her day-to-day needs and requirements. She had further stated that the petitioner/husband is working as Supervisor in Spice Jet Airline and earning a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Apart from that, he is deriving a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as agricultural income.

(ii) The said application was resisted by the petitioner/husband contending that the averments made in the divorce petition are false. The respondent/wife has deserted him on her own accord. She has received all her household articles from the petitioner/husband in pursuant to the complaint lodged by her in the police station. His father is suffering from Heart disease due to the attitude of the respondent/wife. Since he is taking care of his father, he is unable to go for a job. He is still willing to live with his wife.

(iii) The learned Sub Judge, Ambasamudram, in the impugned order has granted interim maintenance to the respondent/wife at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month and Rs.7000/- for litigation expenses to be paid by the petitioner/husband from the date of petition till the date of disposal of divorce petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/husband preferred this revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- as claimed by the respondent/wife and the same is not supported by any material evidence. The petitioner is earning only a sum of Rs.29,999/- per month and with that income, he is maintaining himself and his ailing father, who is under treatment for his acute cardiac disease. He has produced his salary certificate to prove his income. The trial Court erroneously fixed the maintenance amount at Rs.12,000/- per month in the absence of any material evidence, which is arbitrary and illegal.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/wife at the outset submitted that the petitioner/husband failed to establish his income before the trial Court. In fact, the petitioner/husband in his counter affidavit has stated that he left the job to take care of his father. He had not disproved the fact that he is earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month as claimed by the respondent/wife. She would further submit that the principle of providing maintenance is to ensure the living condition of respondent/wife, whereas, in the present case the respondent