(These civil revision petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 25.6.2007 made in I.A.Nos.104 and 105 of 2007 in I.D.O.P.No156 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruvellore.)

Common Order:

The revision petitioner/husband has filed these revision petitions as against the order dated 25.6.2007 in I.A.Nos.104 and 105 of 2007 in I.D.O.P.No.156 of 2006 by the Principal District Judge, Tiruvellore in directing the revision petitioner/husband to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- towards interim maintenance to the respondent/wife and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses and further to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- per month each to the children of the revision petitioner/husband from the date of filing of the inter -locutory applications till the disposal of original I.D.O.P.No.156 of 2006.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/husband submits that the learned Principal District Judge has ignored the principles laid down under Section 36 of Divorce Act 1869 while passing orders in I.A.Nos.104 of 2007 and 105 of 2007 and that the trial Court has not taken note of the fact that the take home salary of the revision petitioner/husband is only Rs.2,200/- and that the respondent/wife was employed as a teacher at the time of filing of the application for interim maintenance and this has not been considered by the trial Court while fixing the quantum of maintenance in both the applications and that the revision petitioner/husband does not have wherewith all capacity to pay the monthly maintenance awarded by the trial Court and therefore prays for allowing these revision petitions to prevent aberration of justice.

3. The trial Court, while passing order in I.A.Nos. 104 of 2007 and 105 of 2007 has directed the revision petitioner/husband to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards interim maintenance to the respondent/wife and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses and a sum of Rs.2000/- per month to his two children.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/husband submits that the revision petitioner is an Electrician in the Ambattur Municipality and that his take home salary is only Rs.1171/- as per the salary slip issued by the Ambattur Municipality in December 2007 and therefore, the revision petitioner/husband has no sufficient income to pay the maintenance amount as ordered by the trial Court.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/wife submits that as per the pay certificate of Ambattur Municipality dated January 2007 , the revision petitioner/husbands total salary is Rs.9,951/- and that his deduction is around Rs.8,234/- and take home salary of the revision petitioner/husband after deduction is only Rs.1717/- and that the revision petitioner/husband has paid only a portion of the amount ordered towards maintenance relating to the period from 8.3.2007 to 14.8.2007 and still there is sizeable chunk of the maintenance amount to be paid by the revision petitioner/husband and the revision petitioner/husband is duty bounden to maintain the respondent/wife and his two children on any score.

6. In this connection, it is to be pointed out that Section 36 of the Divorce Act 1869 speaks of Alimony Pendente Lite and a reading of Section 36 of the said Act clearly indicates that the said Section does not provide for payment of maintenance pendente lite for children and in fact it only speaks of maintenance to the wife, in the considered opinion of this Court. However, in regard to the children maintenance, education and custody under Section 41 of the Divorce Act 1869 deals with the same. Therefore, the revision petitioner/husband cannot wriggle out of the situation in regard to the payment of maintenance to the wife and to his two children.

7. However, at this juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/husband submits that the out of two female children, one is aged about 20 years and therefore in view of the attaining majority, the revision petitioner/husband is not bounden to pay the maintenance to his daughter. The said argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner cannot be countenanced because of the fact that the revision petitioner/husband being a father is duty bound to maintain his wife and his two children and that too when the two children are dependent on him. Moreover, as the father of the two children, he has to maintain them and to provide for their welfare and education expenses.

8. On going through the order passed by the trial court in I.A.Nos.104 of 2007 and 105 of 2007, it is clear that the trial Court has observed that the revision petitioner/husbands parents are possessed of immovable properties and getting rental income and that there is no material evidence to show that the respondent/wife has got separate income and in fact the revision petitioner/husband has not produced any material evidence before the trial Court to show that the respondent/wife is receiving sufficient income and resultantly fixed a sum of Rs.3000/- per month towards maintenance amount for the wife and for the two children has fixed a sum of Rs.2000/- per month each besides awarding a sum of Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses.

9. In regard to the determination of quantum of maintenance to be awarded to the wife and the two children, it is borne in mind that one can allot 1/4th share of income from and out of the total income of the husband which is quite a reasonable and also a prudent one. Even as early as in January 2007, the revision petitioner/husbands total salary is Rs.9,951/- as seen from the salary slip issued by his employer viz., Ambattur Municipality. Moreover, it is not in dispute that the revision petitioner/husbands parents are also possessed of immovable properties and getting rental income therefrom. Therefore, looking at from any point of view, the orders passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvellore in I.A.Nos.104 of 2007 and 105 of 2007 fixing the quantum of maintenance of Rs.3000/-per month to be payable by the revision petitioner/husband to the respondent/wife from the date of filing of the said interlocutory applications till the date of disposal of the original petition and also ordering further sum of Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses and ordering a sum of Rs.2000/- per month towards maintenance to his two children does not suffer from any irregularity or prudent illegality and instead the said orders are valid one by taking note of the spiralling rise in prices/essential commodities and high rate of prevailing inflation and resultantly the civil revision petitions fail and the same are to be hereby dismissed in the interest of justice.

10. In the result, the civil revision petitions are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the trial Court in I.A.Nos.104 of 2007 and 105 of 2007 in I.D.O.P.No156 of 2006 is hereby affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in these revisions. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2008 are also dismissed.