Interim maintenance orders should consider both parties' incomes and ensure fairness in financial support, not simply based on income calculations.

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Order reserved on : 18.08.2025 Order pronounced on : 12.09.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI CRP.Nos.2641 & 2655 of 2025 & CMP.Nos.14931 & 15006 of 2025 M.Krithika ..Petitioner in both CRPs Vs.

J.Srikanth ..Respondent in both CRPs Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in I.A.No.06 of 2022 in O.P.No.1954 of 2020 dated 21.11.2024 and I.A.No.09 of 2024 in O.P.No.1951 of 2021 dated 24.02.2025 on the file of the VI Additional Family Court Judge, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mrs.K.Sumathi in both CRPs For Respondent : Mr.S.Mahesh Kumar in both CRPs

COMMON ORDER

CRP.No.2641 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner/wife, challenging the order in I.A.No.06 of 2022, in and whereby, the application for interim maintenance for the minor child has been allowed partly, directing payment of a sum of Rs.25,000/-. The petitioner/wife seeks enhancement of the interim maintenance.

2.Insofar as CRP.No.2655 of 2025, the petitioner/wife also challenges the dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.09 of 2024, seeking interim maintenance, at Rs.1,00,000/- per month, which has been negatived by the VI Additional Family Court, Chennai.

3.I have heard Mrs.K.Sumathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent in both the revisions.

4.Mrs.K.Sumathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife in both the petitions would state that even when the respondent/husband was employed in India, he was earning not less than Rs.15 lakhs per annum and subsequently, he has shifted to Germany, which only indicates that he moved for better prospects and the Family Court ought to have seen that the respondent was getting a handsome income. She would also state that originally, the petitioner had sought only for Rs.50,000/- as interim maintenance, but however, an interlocutory application was taken out and the claim was revised to Rs.1 lakh.

5.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Family Court has erroneously proceeded to decide the application, as if the petitioner had claimed only Rs.50,000/-, totally ignoring the subsequent amendment in the prayer which was also allowed, enhancing the amount to Rs.1 lakh. She would also rely on the affidavit of assets and liabilities and the admission of the respondent in cross-examination that he was earning 70,000 EUR, after relocating to Germany. The learned counsel for the petitioner would therefore state that the Family Court has erred in appreciating the evidence on record, admissions of the respondent, while dismissing the application for interim maintenance insofar as the wife and awarding a mere sum of Rs.25,000/- for the minor child. She would further state that the wife is entitled to a comfortable living and the husband is expected to maintain the wife and minor child and without considering the object of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act , according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Family Court has passed the impugned orders and she would therefore seek for the revisions being allowed.

6.Per contra, Mr.S.Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/husband, in both the revisionss would submit that both the parties have filed petitions before the Family Court, the wife seeking dissolution of marriage and the husband se