IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE21T DAY OF OCTOBER201329TH ASWINA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 4694 of 2013 () ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN CRA7822008 of SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM ---------------- PETITIONER(S)/ORIGINAL RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------- K.MOHANAKUMAR, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, SREEPARNIKA, VILLA NO.F12, SKYLINE CITY VILLAS, VETTAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS.SMT.K.KUSUMAM SMT.N.SHAMNA RESPONDENT/ORIGINAL PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUJA.S, W/O.K.MOHANAKUMAR, SREEPARNIKA , VILLA NO.F12, SKYLINE CITY VILLAS, VETTAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM690006.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2110-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PJ Crl.MC.No. 4694 of 2013 () ------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF MC NO.702/2012 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF CMP NO. 4162/2012 INTERIM MAINTENANCE PETITION IN MC NO.702/2012 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER/HUSBAND IN ANNEXURE A2-CMP NO.4162/2012 IN MC NO.702/2012 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ANNEXURE A4 COPY OF ORDER
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.782/2008 DATED2910/2010 OF THE HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ANNEXURE A5 COPY OF COMPROMISE PETITION FILED BY THE PARTIES IN CRL.APPEAL NO.782/2008 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ANNEXURE A6 COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1903/2010 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, PATTOM DATED246/2010 ANNEXURE A7 COPY OF PETITION TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOJAPPURA, FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED35/2012 ANNEXURE A8 COPY OF IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED264/2013 IN CMP NO.4162/2012 IN MC NO.702/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ P.BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 4694 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of October, 2013 ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 26.04.2013 in C.M.P. No.4162 of 2012 in M.C. No. 702/2012 whereby the court below has ordered the petitioner herein to pay a sum of 7500/- per month as interim maintenance to the petitioner before the court below and her minor daughter, the respondent before the court below has come up invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to have that portion of the order quashed which ordered maintenance to his wife.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner before the court below is the wife of the respondent. They have a female child. According to the petitioner herein, he was always willing to maintain his wife and she used to go away from his house without informing him and she used to lead a questionable life. An earlier dispute was settled between Crl.M.C. No. 4694 of 2013 -2- the parties and they had taken up residence together. But she continued her pranks and used to leave the house at her volition and used to return as and when she liked.
3. The petitioner before this Court would say that he had occasion to complain about the acts and conduct of his wife as is evidenced by Annexure A7. The grievance of the petitioner is that as a retaliatory measure, his wife instituted a case under the Domestic Violence Act and an interim order has been passed granting maintenance to his wife and the child.
4. The portion which pinches the petitioner before this Court is that the direction to pay maintenance to his wife. He would say that his wife is immensely rich as is evidenced by Annexure A6 by which she has received at least a sum of 15 lakhs. She is capable of maintaining herself and she does not deserve any amount be paid by the petitioner before this Court. The petitioner also says that these crucial facts have not been taken note of by the court Crl.M.C. No. 4694 of 2013 -3- below and the order is clearly unsustainable in law.
5. At the outset itself, it may be stated that there is no merits in the submission at all. First of all, it is the bounden duty of the husband to maintain the wife. It must be remembered that Domestic Violence Act has been enacted in addition to the provisions contained in Section 125 of Cr.P.C. with definite purpose and object. All that the court below has now done is only to pass an interim order as envisaged under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of 7500/- per month as interim maintenance to the petitioner before the court below and her minor daughter. Even assuming that the wife has her own means of income, that does not absolve the husband from maintaining his wife. It was after taking note of the various aspects, that the court below has passed an interim order. Further, it is not as if the petitioner is precluded from bringing the real facts before the court and establishing that Crl.M.C. No. 4694 of 2013 -4- he is not bound to pay maintenance to his wife. The trial is yet to commence. Considering the fact that the amount directed to be paid is only a pittance and it is only an interim order, this court finds no ground to interfere with the said order. This petition is without merits and is accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE ds