IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP (FC).No. 731 of 2010(R)
1. DINESAN.K.U,AGED 44 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PREETHI.C.S,AGED 42 YEARS,D/O.VILASINI,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.G.DEVIPRASADAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :16/11/2010
O R D E R
R. BASANT &
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------
O.P.(FC) No. 731 of 2010-R
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
Basant,J.
The spouses are the parties. Claim for maintenance under
Sec.125 Cr.P.C. has been pending before the Family Court,
Ernakulam from 2009. An application for interim maintenance
was also filed. The same was also pending from 24/9/09.
2. Marriage is admitted. The contention raised is that on
disposal of an item of property belonging to the husband, a lump
sum amount has been paid to the wife. No documents were
produced to support that plea. There is no contention that the
wife is employed or has any independent source of income. The
wife asserted that the husband has employment and income.
The husband denied the same. In these circumstances, the
court below proceeded to issue the impugned direction to pay
O.P.(FC) No. 731 of 2010 -: 2 :-
interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per mensem with
effect from 24/9/09 i.e., the date of petition.
3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned
order. The petitioner prays that the extraordinary constitutional
jurisdiction available to this Court under Art.227 of the
Constitution may be invoked to interfere with the impugned
order.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
We find absolutely no justification in the prayer to invoke the
jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution. Status is
admitted. The inability of the wife to maintain herself does not
appear to be disputed. The contention that a lump sum amount
has been paid has not been substantiated. The matter has been
pending before the court below for about a year. We do not, in
these circumstances, find any merit in the prayer to grant
further time to adduce evidence in this application for interim
maintenance. The order directing payment of interim
maintenance, we are satisfied, is absolutely fair, reasonable and
just. The same does not call for interference by invoking the
jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution.
5. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
6. We, however, direct the learned Judge of the Family
O.P.(FC) No. 731 of 2010 -: 3 :-
Court to dispose of M.C.No.103/09 as expeditiously as possible –
at any rate, within a period of 6 months from the date on which a
copy of this judgment is placed before the Family Court by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. Compliance shall be
reported to this Court.
7. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
Sd/-
R. BASANT
(Judge)
Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
(Judge)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge