Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 26TH JYAISHTA, 1945 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 130/2017 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA REVISION PETITIONER/S: 1 SWAPNA SAJITH AGED 38 YEARS W/O SAJITH, VAZHOOR HOUE,PADINJARE VEMBALLUR VILLAGE ,KODUNGALLUR TALUKMNOW RESIDING AT D/O VALIYAP PARAMBIL ASOKAN, PERINJANAM VILLAGE KODUNGLLUR TALUK PIN 680 686, PIN - 680686 2 ABHINAV AGED 9 YEARS S/O SWAPNA, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. PERINJANAM, PIN - 680686 BY ADV A.G.VISWAMBHARAN RESPONDENT/S: SAJITH AGED 43 YEARS VAZHOOR HOUSE,PADINJARE VEMBALLOOR.P.O.,MATHILAKAM, PIN - 680671 BY ADVS. karthika sukumaran SK K.MEERA(K/587/1991) ANJANA M VADHYAR(K/000456/2018) THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2023 The revision petitioner along with her minor child
has filed M.C No.130 of 2017 before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda seeking maintenance allowance from the respondent. By the impugned order, the Family Court partly allowed the claim and directed the respondent to pay maintenance to the child at the rate of Rs.5,000/-, while declining the wife’s claim on the premise that she is qualified and capable of earning income. It was also observed that the wife was living separately without sufficient cause.
2. Elaborate arguments were advanced by the
learned Counsel on both sides. Indisputably, the impugned order was passed without the parties filing affidavits of disclosure mandated in Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324]. If such affidavits are filed, the income of the husband as also the employment, if any of the wife, will have to be stated. As such, it would be in the interest of both parties to have the prayer for interim maintenance reconsidered, after the affidavits of disclosure are filed.
The Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of, by setting aside the impugned order, to the extent the wife’s claim is rejected. The Family Court shall consider the 1st petitioner's claim for maintenance after referring to the affidavits of disclosure filed by the parties. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that, in spite of the direction to pay maintenance to the child at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month, no amount is paid by the respondent. The learned Counsel for the respondent stoutly opposed the allegation and submitted that, maintenance allowance due to the child is being paid. In view of the factual dispute the respondent is directed to pay 1/3rd of the
amount, if any outstanding towards arrears of maintenance due to the child, within one month. The parties shall appear before the Family Court on 27.06.2023. Sd/- V.G.ARUN JUDGE RK APPENDIX OF RPFC 209/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.C.130/2017 DATED 12/04/2022 OF THE FAMILY COURT,IRINJALAKUDA