ORDER

The learned counsel for the revision Petitioner submitted that the revision Petitioner is the husband, the Respondent is the wife. The maintenance case was filed by the wife before the learned III Additional Judge Family Court, Chennai, in M.C.No. 248 of 2018 was filed by the wife seeking maintenance, in the same miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.1001/2019 in M.C.248 of 2018 was filed for seeking interim maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- per month to the Petitioner and her minor twin children and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.

2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision

Petitioner / husband that the wife in the maintenance case, stated that the husband is running a company on his own and he is the director of that company. Whereas, the wife is working as part time and she is earning only Rs.10,000/- per month as per Assets and liabilities furnished by the

Petitioner / wife before the learned Family Court.

3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the revision

Petitioner / husband that the revision Petitioner was the director of the company. Due to the case filed by the wife in maintenance case, he has to appear before the Family Court. As per the Family Court Act, parties are to appear regularly. They can engage counsel only in particular stage of the case, either during enquiry or arguments. In all other proceedings, the presence of the parties are required, therefore for the frequent appearance of the revision Petitioner / husband, Respondent in the maintenance case, he was forced to resign by the circumstances as well as the pressure on him by the other directors. In the assets and liabilities furnished by the wife in maintenance case, regarding assets and liabilities of the husband, she had stated that the income of the husband is actually was not the income of the husband, it was the income of the company. After filing of this case, due to the circumstances created by the wife, the husband had to appear as Respondent in the maintenance case. Therefore, he was forced to resign and now he is working as a software engineer for lesser salary, still with the salary available, he has to support himself, his parents and also their medical needs. Still due to the love and affection towards his own children, he had been contributing to the minors regularly. He had filed this petition seeking modification of the order.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision

Petitioner / husband that the wife had suppressed the fact that the revision Petitioner / husband had obtained the details of the wife and her source of income which is furnished as Additional typed set, in which, the learned counsel for the revision Petitioner invited the attention of this Court, the income of the wife having suppressed the fact of her availing salary, she is not entitled to get interim maintenance. As per the claim made by her, she has sufficient income to support her family. Therefore, the learned counsel for the revision Petitioner seeks to modify the cost imposed by the learned III Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai in M.P.1001 of 2019 in

M.C.No.248 of 2018 dated 02.11.2021.

5. Further, the learned counsel for the revision Petitioner / husband invited the attention of this Court, to the typed set of papers furnished by the revision Petitioner, in which, the revision Petitioner had obtained information regarding the payment and the status of the Respondent / wife under the Right to Information Act in the Employees Provident Fund Organization. In which, the Respondent in this revision petition and the Petitioner in the maintenance case Mrs.Bhuvaneshwari is stated to be a permanent employee, whereas she claim maintenance. She is a freelancer and earning only Rs.10,000/- per month. It is not so, as per the payment details obtained by the revision Petitioner / husband, the learned counsel for the revision Petitioner invited the attention of this Court, assets and liabilities of the Petitioner and the Respo