IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15160 of 2010(R)
1. M.P.AKASH RADHAKRISHNAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. G.SIMITHA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :18/05/2010
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ
==============================
W.P.(CIVIL)NO. 15160 OF 2010
============================
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MAY 2010
JUDGMENT
Basant,J.
The petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and
father of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is the minor child.
The wife has filed an application for divorce. That matter is
pending before the Family Court from 2008. The wife filed an
application for litigation expenses and maintenance pendente
lite. She claimed that she is impecunious and has no income of
her own. Her husband, the petitioner is employed abroad and
earns an income of Rs.50,000/- per mensem, she asserted. The
application was resisted. Husband denied the allegations about
his means and the want of means on the part of the claimant-
wife. No evidence was produced before the court below. On the
materials available in the case, the court below proceeded to
pass the impugned interim order directing payment of an
amount of Rs.7500/- as litigation expenses and an amount of
w.p.(c)no. 15160/2010 2
Rs.6,000/- per mensem as maintenance.
2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned
order. He prays that the extra ordinary constitutional
jurisdiction of this Court may be invoked to interfere with the
impugned order.
3. What is his grievance? According to him, the amount of
Rs.6,000/- awarded as monthly maintenance is excessive and
beyond his means. That he was employed abroad is admitted. He
has, of course, a case that he left his employment abroad and
has come to India. Not a scintilla of material placed before the
court below to substantiate this assertion. The wife is admittedly
in India. She asserted that she has no employment. Husband
asserted that she has employment and income.
4. Absolutely no materials were placed before court in
support of the assertions of the petitioner. The order passed by
the court below, in these circumstances, according to us, is
absolutely reasonable and at any rate does not warrant
interference invoking the extra ordinary constitutional
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This,
we are satisfied, is not a fit case where this Court should invoke
its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to
w.p.(c)no. 15160/2010 3
interfere with the impugned order. The challenge raised,
therefore fails. This writ petition deserves to be dismissed in
limine.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that there
may be a direction for expeditious disposal of the O.P.filed in
2008. We need only mention that the learned Judge of the Family
Court must make every endeavour to dispose of
O.P.NO.415/2008 as expeditiously as possible.
6. In the circumstances of the case, this writ petition is
dismissed with the above directions.
R. BASANT, JUDGE
M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE
ks.
w.p.(c)no. 15160/2010 4