IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 49 of 2009()
1. SANDHYA, AGED 34 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. MINOR ABHIJITH, AGED 10,
3. MINOR ANUSREE, AGED 4 YEARS,
Vs
1. VALSALAN, AGED 41, S/O.APPUKKUTTAN,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :03/07/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.P(FC) NO.49 of 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2009
O R D E R
————–
Respondent No.1 though served remains absent. Heard counsel
for petitioner and Public Prosecutor.
2. This revision is in challenge of order dated 12.11.2008
passed by learned Judge of the Family Court, Thrissur in M.C.
No.255 of 2007 awarding maintenance to petitioners, wife and two
children, aged 34 years, 10 years and 4 years respectively at the rate
of R.300/- each per month. Learned counsel contends that without
conducting any proper enquiry and merely on the willingness
expressed by respondent No.1, maintenance has been awarded which
is alarmingly low and not sufficient to sustain the petitioners.
3. It is seen from the order under challenge that no enquiry
was conducted in the matter. Learned counsel concedes that
respondent had not even filed a counter. What remained is only the
petition filed by petitioners in the court below and hence it is not
necessary to call for the records of the case.
4. I have perused the copy of the petition produced by
counsel for petitioners. It is seen that petitioners claimed maintenance
at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month for petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,500/-
R.P(FC) No.49 of 2009
-: 2 :-
each per month for petitioner Nos.2 and 3. What is awarded is only
Rs.300/- each per month based on the willingness expressed by
respondent No.1 to pay maintenance at that rate. I notice that it is
without conducting any enquiry as to the needs of petitioners that
maintenance was ordered. Therefore the order under challenge
cannot be sustained.
5. At the same time the amount offered by respondent No.1
can be treated as interim maintenance payable to the petitioners.
Therefore the amount fixed by the learned Judge, Family Court shall be
treated as interim maintenance payable to the petitioners by
respondent No.1 from the day specified by the learned Judge.
Resultantly, this revision succeeds. The order under challenge
is set aside and the case is remitted to the court below for fresh
disposal after giving opportunity to respondent No.1 to file his
counter if any and giving opportunity to both sides to adduce
evidence. Amount awarded by the learned Judge shall be treated as
interim maintenance payable to the petitioners in the manner stated
above.
Parties shall appear in the Family Court, on 10.8.2009. Learned
Judge shall expedite the trial and disposal of the case.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv