AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 348 wordsA. Badharudeen, J
This is an original petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner herein impugns order in M.P.No.42/2022 in M.C.No.16/2022, dated 16.6.2023, whereby, the Family Court granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month to the 1st respondent herein (wife) and Rs.3,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent herein (minor child).
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, on admission.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the order was passed in his absence and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
On perusal of the order, it could be seen that, M.C. was filed as early in the year 2022. The case of the respondents herein before the Family Court was that, the petitioner herein is a person, working as Sales Manager in ‘Novartics’, Ernakulam, and has been earning Rs.75,000/- per month. On this premise, Rs.10,000/- each was claimed as maintenance and interim prayer for the said relief has been pressed into.
The petitioner herein filed objection, admitting the relationship and stating that, he had been working as Medical Representative and was having salary of Rs.15,000/- only and he lost his job on 11.2.2022.
In this matter, the Family Court granted a mere sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the 1st respondent herein (wife) and Rs.3,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent herein (minor child). In the objection, there is no contention raised by the petitioner herein that the first respondent herein (wife) is having any job or income or she is capable of maintaining herself. Thus, it appears that, even if the argument mooted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order was passed in the absence of the lawyer, is having force, the amount granted towards interim maintenance is too meagre and the petitioner could pay the same. Therefore, there is no necessity to interfere with the order.
Hence, this Original Petition (Criminal) is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to raise this contention in the M.C., in accordance with law.