ORDER :

Mohammed Shaffiq, J.

Heard Mr.N.Anantha Padmanadam, learned Senior Counsel for M/s.APN Law Associates, for Revision Petitioner and Mr.P.Samuel Gunasingh, learned Counsel for D.Ravindran, for Respondent.

2. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the maintenance order passed by Family Court, Madurai, in M.C.No.71 of 2020, dated 09.12.2024, whereby maintenance petition filed by Petitioner was disposed of finding that since the Petitioner has been paid the interim maintenance of Rs.7000/- in DVC No.33 of 2020, no further maintenance is required to be paid. It is the above order which is the subject matter of challenge in the present Criminal Revision Case.

3. The marriage between Petitioner and Respondent was solemnized on 05.09.2005, according to Christian rites and customs. It is submitted that it was a love marriage. Petitioner, a Hindu by faith, converted to Christianity with the consent of her parents a few weeks prior to the marriage, and her name was changed from Ramanapriya to Angelin Priya. Due to differences, parties have separated. Petitioner states that she was forced out of her matrimonial home sometime in December 2005, i.e., hardly three months since marriage.

3.1. Respondent was appointed as PET Master in a Government School at Katumavadi in Pudukottai District sometime in 2008. Soon thereafter, petitioner began living with Respondent. It is submitted that Petitioner’s father had settled 3 acres of land to Petitioner, out of which Petitioner settled 5 cents in favor of Respondent in 2016. It is further submitted that Respondent constructed a house on 5 cents of property that had been settled by Petitioner in his favor.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Petitioner would submit that considerable emphasis has been placed by Respondent on the fact that the property given to the petitioner by her father has been converted into house site and therefore, petitioner does not deserve maintenance. However, it is submitted by petitioner that the said property falls within an area governed by the Hill Area Conservation Authority (HACA), and any development for use as a house site is not permissible without obtaining the requisite permission as contemplated under the relevant Rules. It is further submitted that, as on date, no such permission has been obtained to construct or convert the said property into a house site, thus submission of respondent is incorrect.

4.1. Learned Senior Advocate would also submit that the said property is not suitable for agricultural purposes, as the terrain is rocky in nature. It is further submitted that the Petitioner had filed a divorce petition, which was allowed. Petitioner had also filed a maintenance petition; however, the same was disposed of on the ground that interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- had already been paid in DVOP proceedings, and therefore no further maintenance was required to be paid.

4.2. Learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner would further contend that impugned order suffers from manifest and apparent errors, as would be evident from the following extract:

5. He would submit that the above finding, viz.,

a) Take home salary is only Rs.24,412/-

b) Respondent's monthly expenditure is about Rs.45,000/-

c) EMI towards repayment of home appliances is about Rs. 15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-

d) medical expenses of his mother.

The finding that a person with a take home salary of Rs.24,412/- would have to expend more than Rs.60,000/- every month appears improbable. He would then submit that respondent is presently earning a salary of Rs.80,922/-. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that this information pertains to January 2024, and he is not certain whether any increment has been granted thereafter. Be that as it may, the fact remains that Respondent was earning at least Rs.80,000/- per month.

5.1. Learned Senior Advocate would further submit that Petitioner is a B.A. graduate and, prior to her marriage, was employed with a company known as SACS in the year 2005.