Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 300/2018 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT :- JITHIN K. THOMAS AGED 33 YEARS S/O Y. THOMAS, KODIYATTU HOUSE, KANNIMELTHERI, PATTAZHI VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT - , PIN - 691522 BY ADVS. K.SHAJ C.IJLAL ARUN CHAND JOSEPH MARY DAS VINAYAK G MENON BHARAT VIJAY P. MAJID MUHAMMED K. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS :- 1 PREETHI AGED 27 YEARS D/O NAHUM PILLAI, MATHRU BHAVAN, KIZHAKKE THERUVU, KOLLAM DISTRICT - , PIN - 691508 2 IZABELLE ELSA JITHIN (MINOR) AGED 6 YEARS D/O JITHIN K. THOMAS, MATHRU BHAVAN, KIZHAKKE THERUVU, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691508 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Dated this the 14th day of June, 2022 This revision is filed challenging an order passed by Family Court, Kottarakkara (for short ‘the court below’) in Crl.M.P.No.234/2019 in M.C.No.300/2018.
2. Crl.M.P.No.234/2019 is an application filed under Section
125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) seeking for interim monthly maintenance allowance. Objection was not filed by the revision petitioner before the court below in Crl.M.P.No.234/2019.
3. The court below has relied on the affidavit of the
respondent where she has affirmed that she has no sufficient income, that the second respondent is a student and that the petitioner herein who is employed abroad and having sufficient income failed to maintain her. Accordingly, relying on the affidavit filed as above the court below has passed the impugned order directing the revision
petitioner to pay interim monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.7,500/- each to respondents 1 and 2.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner that he was not granted with an opportunity to file counter statement by the court below. According to him, an affidavit as directed by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha [AIR 2021 SC 569], was also not insisted by the Family Court prior to passing of an order in Crl.M.P.No.234/2019.
5. According to him, the first respondent being employed
and earning sufficient income, the Family Court is unjustified in passing an order directing the revision petitioner to pay interim monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.7,500/-.
6. This Court has noticed that M.C.No.300/2018 was filed in
the year 2018 and Crl.M.P was filed in the year 2019. The order under challenge was passed in Crl.M.P. only on 18.03.2022 and therefore, there was ample opportunity to the revision petitioner to file objection in the Crl.M.P. The revision petitioner did not file a counter statement in Crl.M.P. Therefore, the court below was constrained to act solely
upon the affidavit filed by the first respondent and pass the impugned order. The court below is perfectly justified in the context on hand to direct payment of Rs.7,500/- as interim monthly maintenance allowance, by the impugned order. The order does not deserve interference. R.P.(F.C) fails and is dismissed. The revision petitioner is at liberty to raise all his contentions in the counter statement filed in the M.C and to contest it on the basis of those. Sd/- MARY JOSEPH JUDGE SMA