C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUNDER MOHAN,J.)

The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the appellant / husband aggrieved by the common order dated 20.05.2022 passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2021 and 2 of 2022 in O.P.No.1803 of 2020 granting interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the minor child of the appellant and the respondent and directing the appellant to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards educational expenses of the minor child and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses.

2.The appellant filed petition in O.P.No.1803 of 2020 for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

3.Pending the said divorce petition, the respondent herein filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 praying for interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month and filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 praying for a direction to the appellant to pay educational expenses of the minor child and litigation expenses.

4.The respondent had broadly stated in her petitions for interim maintenance and for educational and litigation expenses that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 15.09.2016 at Chennai and on 06.07.2017, a male child was born out of the wedlock. From the beginning, the respondent and the appellant did not have a very cordial relationship. The respondent had filed a petition for divorce and eversince their separation, the appellant had not taken care of the respondent and the minor child. The appellant was working in a company named Barclays Shared Services Pvt. Ltd. And drawing a salary of more than Rs.34,000/- per month. He has other sources of earning and hence, he is liable to pay maintenance to the respondent and the child.

5.The appellant filed a counter stating that the respondent left the matrimonial home on her own volition. She took away all the jewels and her articles, when she left the matrimonial home. She was earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month and she came from a very affluent family. Her father is earning substantially in business and has properties from which he is earning a monthly rent of Rs.60,000/- and hence, the appellant need not pay maintenance either to the respondent or to the child.

6.Before the Family Court, the respondent marked Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 and no documents were marked on behalf of the appellant. No oral evidence were let in either on the side of the appellant or on the side of the respondent.

7.In I.A.No.1 of 2021, the Family Court found that the respondent was working and hence held that she is not entitled to maintenance and held that the appellant is liable to maintain the minor child and directed him to pay Rs.10,000/- per month for the maintenance of the minor child. In I.A.No.2 of 2022, the respondent had prayed for educational expenses and marked the school bills of the minor child. The Family Court directed the appellant to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards educational expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses to the respondent based on the bills produced by her. 8.The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is earning a sum of Rs.20,424/- per month which is his take home salary. On the other hand, the respondent on her own, is earning nearly Rs.50,000/- per month. That apart, the appellant is paying monthly rent of Rs.12,000/-. The learned counsel relied upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in “P.R.Ganesh Vs. K.Latika” in C.M.A.No.2733 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.19734 of 2016 dated 01.06.2017 in support of his submission and held that the wife is earning and she is capable of maintaining herself, the husband need not pay maintenance pendent lite and prayed for setting aside the order of the Court below.

9.The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the appellant's version, that he is earning only Rs.20,424/- per month is not substantiated before the Court by filing salary certificate. In fact, in the document filed by the respondent before the trial Court which is the appellant's profile given at the time of