M.VENUGOPAL,J. - (1.) THE civil revision petitioner/petitioner/defendant has filed the present civil revision petition as against the order dated 20.8.2008 in I.A.No.1431 of 2007 in O.S.No.394 of 2004 passed by the learned District Munsif, Aruppukkottai, in directing the revision petitioner/defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.400/ - (Rupees Four Hundred only) p.m. from the date of the suit i.e., from 14.6.2004 till 20.8.2008 and the same amount has been directed to be paid on or before 4.9.2008, failing which the petition will stand dismissed and the matter has been directed to be called on 5.9.2008.
(2.) BEING aggrieved against the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1431 of 2007 in O.S.No.394 of 2004, the revision petitioner/petitioner/ defendant has preferred this civil revision petition.
(3.) THE revision petitioner appearing in person, submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the fact that the suit has been filed by the respondent/ wife claiming permanent alimony from him, but not the interim maintenance which has already been deposited into the Sub Court, Aruppukkottai, on 24.3.2003 under Lok Adalat proceedings in fixed lump sum amount of Rs.15,000/ - (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) and the I.A.No.26 of 2002 has been closed in that effect and therefore, the conditional order passed in I.A.No.1431 of 2007 directing the petitioner to make a deposit of interim maintenance for the second time is violating the settled principles of law and the same is not a legal one and further, on 5.6.2007, he has not appeared before the trial Court for the purpose of cross -examining the respondent/wife and that he has left for Chennai on 4.6.2007 where he approached the directorate of legal study on 5.6.2007 in connection to his elder son's education regarding the re -do case in 8th Semester of B.L. course and therefore, his absence on 5.6.2007 is neither wilful nor wanton, but due to bona fide circumstances and in any event, the order passed by the trial Court suffers from serious infirmities of law and therefore, to prevent miscarriage of justice, the same has to be set aside by this Court. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/wife submits that the respondent/wife has filed a case claiming maintenance against the petitioner/ defendant and that the petitioner has not appeared before the trial Court with a view not to pay the maintenance to the respondent/wife and that even on 13.3.2006, the petitioner has not appeared in the case and that on 13.3.2006, an ex parte decree has been passed against the petitioner and the present application has been projected by the revision petitioner to set aside the ex parte decree for the second time and therefore, in order to procrastinate the legal proceedings, the petitioner/defendant has projected the present I.A.No.1431 of 2007 and that a particular amount to be fixed by the Court may be directed to be paid by the petitioner/defendant from the date of filing of the suit till the passing of the orders in I.A.No.1431 of 2007.;