Interim maintenance can be ordered even if the spouse has a higher income under specific circumstances, affirming financial support obligations.

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI C.R.P.No.2713 of 2025 and CMP Nos.15354 and 14505 of 2025 Sarathkumar ... Petitioner vs

1.Mrs.Hemalatha

2.Munusamy

3.Kanchana .. Respondents Revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 11.02.2025 made in M.P.No.2 of 2024 in DVC No.333 of 2024 on the file of Mahila Court, Puducherry For Petitioner : Ms.T.Lavanya

ORDER

The husband, aggrieved by the common order dated 11.02.2025 in M.P Nos.2,3 and 4 of 2024 in DVC No.333 of 2024 is before this Court, challenging the order of interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/-per month.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The case of the petitioner/husband is that his wife/first respondent was employed in WIPRO, earning handsome salary of Rs.60,000/-per month, three times more than what the petitioner/husband is earning/being a Government Servant. The petitioner also states that his wife/first respondent is doing a saree draping business, for which, she earns not less than Rs.500/-per saree and therefore, the first respondent/wife has sufficient income to maintain herself.

4. On the contrary, the revision petitioner/husband has to take care of his aged parents besides maintaining himself and he is earning Rs.23,500/- per month and therefore, it is not necessary for the revision petitioner to pay any amount to the first respondent/wife, who is admittedly earning more than the revision petitioner/husband.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the order of Mahila Court, Puducherry.

6. The Mahila Court, Puducherry has considered the claims of the revision petitioner that that the first respondent/wife is earning handsome money and she was working in WIPRO till December 2023 and presently she is doing saree draping business and earning Rs.500/-per saree. Mahila Court has held that the petitioner/husband is not able to substantiate the claim that the first respondent/wife was working with WIPRO till December 2023 and that she is earning handsomely not less than Rs.3,000/-per month, doing saree draping business.

7. Taking into account the salary slip of the revision petitioner and also the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner/husband has to look after his aged parents and sister-in-law, the Mahila Court has ordered only a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to be paid to the first respondent/wife, as interim maintenance. In fact, the Mahila Court has also dismissed the claim made by the first respondent/wife for return the Sridhana articles, giving a finding that evidence has to be recorded and in a summary manner, the application cannot be disposed of. I find that the Mahila Court, in and by a well considered and reasoned order, directed payment of Rs.5,000/-to the first respondent/wife towards interim maintenance. Therefore, I find no perversity or illegality in the P.B.BALAJI.,J.

sr order passed by the Mahila Court, warrant interference of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India .

8. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.