Brijeesh Antony @ Sebastian vs Baby @ Brigit

P.Somarajan, J

The challenge is against the order of the Family Court, Ernakulam allowing an application for condonation of delay and ex parte order of

maintenance conditionally directing the petitioner to pay half of the arrears of maintenance and to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent who are

original petitioners 4 in number, wife and three minor children.

2. It was submitted that in spite of notice, the husband/respondent in the original petition remained absent. Consequently, an ex parte decree was

passed. The husband came up with these two applications only when coercive steps were initiated against him for recovery of the maintenance

amount.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has to maintain his elderly father and mother from his meager income out of his job as

maison. This court can take judicial notice of daily earning of a maison employed in construction work. The arguments advanced by the petitioner that

he has to maintain his elderly father and mother may not be a sufficient reason to reject the claim of maintenance to his minor children and his legally

wedded wife. It is not brought to notice of this court why he kept away from the court inspite notice in the maintenance application. This would prima

facie show and explain what is behind it. The Family Court had applied a rationale which reflects a proper balance between the petitioner and the

respondents by ordering deposit of half of the arrears of maintenance and also Rs.5,000/-. But having regard to the submission of the learned counsel

for the petitioner, it is fit and proper to direct the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- within one month from today and an amount of

Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only) out of the arrears of maintenance within two months thereafter, failing which, the Original Petition will

stand dismissed confirming the order of the Family court.

The Original Petition is allowed in part accordingly.