Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE28H DAY OF MARCH20147TH CHAITHRA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 1572 of 2014 (D) --------------------------------------- [AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED0512/2013 IN C.M.P.NO.105 OF2013IN M.C. NO.295 OF2012OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM] ........... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER IN C.M.P.NO.105/2013 IN M.C. NO.295/2012: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A.ANI, AGED47YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPADAS, 'SARANYA', S.N.M LIBRARY, KULATHOOR (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 582. BY ADVS.SRI.G.P.SHINOD, SRI.RAM MOHAN.G, SRI.MANU .V, SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER IN C.M.P.NO.105/2013 IN M.C. NO.295/2012: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. S.L.SREELA, D/O.LEELAVATHI, CHANDAVILA VEEDU, KOCHULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 011.
2. A.S.ABHIRAM, CHANDAVILA VEEDU, KOCHULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND FIRST RESPONDENT S.L.SREELA, D/O.LEELAVATHI, CHANDAVILA VEEDU, KOCHULLOOR , MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011. R1 BY ADV. SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2803-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. CRL.M.C. NO.1572/2014-D: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: A1: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF M.C NO. 295 OF2012BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. A2: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN M.C NO. 295 OF2012BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. A3: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF C.M.P NO. 105 OF2013IN M.C NO. 295 OF2012FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANTHAPURAM. A4: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION IN C.M.P NO. 105/2013 IN M.C NO. 295 OF2012FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. A5: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER
DTD. 5/12/2013 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN C.M.P NO. 105 OF2013IN M.C NO. 295 OF2012 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. K. Ramakrishnan, J.
============================== Crl.M.C.No.1572 of 2014 ============================== Dated this, the 28th day of March, 2014. ORDER
This is an application filed by the petitioner who is the respondent in C.M.P.No.105/13 in M.C.No.295/12 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to quash the order under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioner who is the counter petitioner in C.M.P.No.105/13 in M.C.No.295/12 is the husband of the first respondent herein and father of the second respondent. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 29.08.1992 and two children were born to them out of which one is a major and the second respondent is the other child. The petitioner was earlier employed in Saudi Arabia and he was sending the amounts earned by him there to the first respondent and also purchased properties and constructed a residential house and now, it is in the possession of first respondent. After some time, he lost his employment in Saudi Arabia and came back to his native place. Thereafter, there was some difference of opinion arose between the petitioner and the first respondent and they Crl.M.C.No.1572 of 2014 :
2. : started residing separately. So, the first respondent filed M.C.No.295/12 seeking maintenance for herself and the second respondent minor child under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. She also filed C.M.P.No.105/13 claiming interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,000/- for first respondent and Rs.6,500/- for second respondent. The petitioner filed objections to the main case as well as to the interim application. In both these applications, he had taken a stand that she was residing separately without any reasonable cause and he is even prepared to maintain them, if they are prepared to come and stay with him and also he is not getting the income as alleged in the petition and he is getting only for a meagre income as rent and he has to maintain his family as well apart from providing maintenance to the respondents herein. So, according to him, he has no liability to pay maintenance to the respondents. The learned Family Court considered these aspects and as per Annexure V order awarded an interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to the first respondent and 3,000/- to the second respondent which is being challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition.
3. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the Crl.M.C.No.1572 of 2014 :
3. : Counsel for the respondents.
4. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amount awarded is excessive and he is not having income as claimed by the respondents in the petition and he is getting only meager income. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that, there is a 19 year old daughter also there for her and the first respondent has not claimed any maintenance for that child. She is without any income and she will have to maintain the minor child who is now studying in 9th Standard. So, according to him, the amount award by the court below is reasonable. No interference is called for at the hands of this court.
5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner married the first respondent and two children were born to them in the wed lock and one of them became major and the second respondent is the other child who is a minor even now. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner was earlier working in Saudi Arabia for more than 15 years and thereafter, he came back to his native place and now settled here. Admittedly, some difference of opinion arose between the petitioner and the first respondent and now they are residing separately. At present, there is no evidence before the court as to what is the Crl.M.C.No.1572 of 2014 :
4. : actual income that is being derived by the petitioner. But, there is some indication from the counter itself that he is conducting a business in plastic articles and also getting rental income from 3 buildings. The actual amount of rent has not been mentioned in the counter statement. Further, the petitioner had no case that the first respondent is having any independent income to maintain herself and the child. During the pendency of the marital relationship, there is a duty cast on the petitioner as husband to maintain the wife and the minor child as his father. The child is studying in 9th standard now. Though, the petitioner had a case that the first respondent is residing in the property which was purchased by the petitioner and there is income from the property. There is no evidence as such now available regarding the nature of income derived from the property said to have been in the possession of the first respondent. However, considering the circumstances, and also evaluating the overall situations mentioned in the petition and the counter statement, the amount of Rs.4,000/- and Rs.3,000/- awarded by court below as interim maintenance appears to be on the higher side. The actual quantum of maintenance payable has to be decided in the main case after evidence. So, considering the Crl.M.C.No.1572 of 2014 :
5. : circumstances, this court feels that, directing the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the first respondent and Rs.2,000/- to the second respondent in this petition will be sufficient and that will meet the ends of justice. So, the petition is partly allowed by modifying the quantum of interim maintenance payable to the first respondent as Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs.4,000/- fixed by the court below and Rs.2,000/- to the second respondent instead of Rs.3,000/- fixed by the court below and the petitioner is directed to pay that amount from the date of petition as directed by the court below. The petitioner is directed to pay the amount as modified by this court as interim maintenance to the respondents within one month from today. With the above direction and observation, the petition is allowed in part. Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge. Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge