Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1942 OP(Crl.).No.172 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 127/2018 OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPPALAM PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: JITHIN, AGED 30 YEARS S/O.VENUGOPAL, VENUGEETHAM (PATTIKKAD MELEKALATHIL), THUVOOR.P.O, VANDOOR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, GEETHA, W/O.VENUGOPAL, AGED 53 YEARS BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: 1 RESHMA AGED 24 YEARS D/O.RAMANI, NALLOOR VEEDU, MANNAYAMKODE.P.O, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679303 2 JWALA MINOR AGED 2 1/2 YERS, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER -GUARDIAN, RESHMA, NALLOOR VEEDU, MANNAYAMKODE.P.O, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679303 THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.03.2020, THE COURT ON 23.03.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J ---------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2020
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the husband and the respondents are the wife and the child.
2. The respondents filed an application as M.C. No. 127/2018 in the Family Court, Ottapalam under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C claiming maintenance from the petitioner.
3. The respondents later filed an application as C.M.P No. of Rs.8,000/- per month for the first respondent and Rs.5,000/- per month for the second respondent and also litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/-.
4. The respondents alleged that the petitioner had neglected
them and he refused to pay maintenance to them. It was alleged by the respondents that the petitioner is conducting an agency of mineral water by name K.M.K Marketing Agency and that the petitioner has got income of Rs.1,00,000/- per month from that business. The respondents also alleged that the petitioner has got bank deposits and also income of Rs.10,000/- per month from landed properties.
5. The power of attorney holder of the petitioner filed
objection to the application for interim maintenance. It was contended by the petitioner that the first respondent is employed and she gets Rs.25,000/- per month from her job. The petitioner also contended that he is only an employee of the mineral water agency by name K.M.K Marketing Agency and he only gets Rs.10,000/- per month as income.
6. As per Ext.P7 order dated 06.09.2019, the Family Court
directed the petitioner to pay monthly interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- to the first respondent and at the rate of Rs.2,000/- to the second respondent, from the date of petition, that is, 04.04.2019. The Family Court also directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- to the respondents as litigation expenses.
7. This original petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India by the husband challenging the aforesaid order
passed by the Family Court.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the first respondent is the wife and the second respondent is the child of the petitioner.
10. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent is now working in a marriage bureau and she is earning Rs.9,500/- per month.
11. However, admittedly, the petitioner had not filed any document before the Family Court to prove the job of the first respondent and her income from it.
12. Admittedly, at the time when the Family Court passed the
order granting interim maintenance, the petitioner was working
abroad. It is pertinent to note that the counter statement in the application for interim maintenance was filed not by the petitioner but by his power of attorney holder as he was employed abroad. The petitioner has not disclosed what is the actual income earned by him from his job abroad.
13. In the aforesaid circumstances, having considered the fact
that the petitioner is employed abroad, I find no reason to interfere with the interim order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is liable to be dismissed.
14. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. However, it is made
clear that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Family Court itself for variation or alteration of the impugned order passed against him by that court by bringing to the notice of that Court, change of circumstances, if any, since the date of passing of that order. Sd/- R. NARAYANA PISHARADI JUDGE lsn APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN MC NO.127/2018 OF THE FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM DATED 31.07.2018 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS AS CMP.NO.132/2019 IN MC NO.127/2018 OF THE FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM DATED 11.2.2019
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 26.8.2019 IN MC NO.127/2018 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 22.5.2019 TO EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 11.7.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IN CMP NO.132/2019 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PATTAMBI POLICE STATION ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PETITION REGISTER EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2019 IN CMP NO.132/2019 IN MC NO.127/2018 OF THE FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE LSN