7.The petitioner, who has come forward with a contention that the respondent is financially well settled, has not proved the same except for filing the documents relating to the ownership of the vehicles. He has not substantiated his contention that the respondent herein was earning a monthly income of Rs.18,000/-. Further, the petitioner, who is the husband of the respondent and father of the minor son, is legally bound to maintain his wife and child. Admittedly, he has not paid a single penny to the respondent and her minor child. It is to be taken note of that the respondent/wife has not filed the application for maintenance as soon as the petition for divorce was filed. On the contrary, she has waited for two years before filing such an application. It appears that the respondent/wife had wanted a rapprochement and therefore, had not tried to precipitate matters. The petitioner has not denied the contention of the respondent that he is a Post Graduate Teacher. Therefore, having the capacity to maintain his wife and child, this Court is of the opinion that, the maintenance amount and the litigant expenses awarded is very meagre and no exception can be taken to the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Paramakudi.
