Kerala High Court
Manu S Nair vs Chandana C on 26 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 4TH BHADRA, 1944
OP(CRL.) NO. 360 OF 2022
PROCEEDINGS IN CRL.M.P.NO.1/2022 IN MC NO.147/2019 PENDING BEFORE THE
FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER:
MANU S NAIR,
S/O SUBRAMMANYAN NAIR,
MANJESH BHAVAN, PUTHUSSERY BHAGOM,
VAYALA P.O., ADOOR
NOW RESIDING AT PARANGAM VILAYIL,
VAYALA P.O., ADOOR ,PATHANAMTHITTA- 691 554.
BY ADV SRI.SREEHARI INDUKALADHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 CHANDANA C,
W/O MANU S NAIR,
PLAVILA VADAKKETHIL, VAYALA P.O
PUTHUSSERY BHAGAM MURI,
ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK-691 551
2 ANAND KRISHNA (MINOR)
PLAVILA VADAKKETHIL, VAYALA P.O.,
PUTHUSSERY BHAGAM MURI
ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK-691 551.
THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.08.2022, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P(Crl.) No.360 of 2022
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 26th day of August, 2022
This Original Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking to set aside an order passed by
Family Court, Pathanamthitta (for short 'the court below') in
Crl.M.P.No. 1/2022 in M.C.No.147/2019. By the impugned
order the court below has directed the petitioner herein to pay
monthly allowance for interim maintenance at the rate of
Rs.5,000/- each to his wife and minor child who is studying in
6th standard.
2. In the impugned order the court below has observed
that the petitioner herein had admitted before the court that he
is getting a salary of Rs.16,000/- from his job as a Salesman.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has read out the
contentions taken in the objection filed. It is noticed that the
petitioner herein has admitted in the objection that he is
getting Rs.16,000/- as salary from his work as a Salesman. In
the impugned order it has been stated by the court below that
the respondent has admitted in his counter statement that his
O.P(Crl.) No.360 of 2022
wife is not having any avocation and his child is studying in 6 th
standard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed
out that in the counter statement he has not admitted that the
wife is not having any avocation. True that a mistake has been
crept into the impugned order. But the 1st respondent has taken
a specific contention in the petition seeking for interim
maintenance that she is having no job and is unable to
maintain herself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
an affidavit needs to be filed by the parties for passing any
order granting monthly allowance for interim maintenance.
According to him in the case on hand the 1 st respondent failed
to file affidavit disclosing her assets and liabilities as directed
by the dictum in Rajnesh V. Neha and Another [2020 (6) KHC
1 (SC)]. The dictum in Rajnesh supra insists that both parties
to a Maintenance Case shall file affidavits disclosing their assets
and liabilities. In the case on hand the petitioner herein also
failed to file an affidavit as insisted by Rajnesh supra.
Therefore he cannot blame the lady for not having filed an
affidavit. 3rd Proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 125 of the
O.P(Crl.) No.360 of 2022
Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') directs that
an application for interim maintenance allowance shall be
considered within sixty days from the date on which the notice
of the application is served on the petitioner.
4. In the case on hand M.C. was seen filed in the year
2019 and Crl.M.P. seeking interim maintenance allowance was
filed in the year 2022. Therefore, the court below cannot be
found fault with in passing an order based on the materials
available. Rs.5,000/- stands ordered in favour of the
respondents being interim maintenance allowance this Court is
declined to interfere with.
5. The court below shall insist the parties to file
affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities as directed in
Rajnesh supra while M.C. was taken up for consideration. The
evidence adduced by both parties shall be considered while
passing a final order in the M.C.
O.P.(Crl.) fails and is dismissed in limine.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH
JUDGE
MJL
O.P(Crl.) No.360 of 2022
APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 360/2022
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF MC NO.147/2019 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE C.M.P NO. 1/2022 IN M C
NO.147/2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY
COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION ALONG WITH LIST
OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THIS PETITIONER IN
THE ABOVE MC
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2022 IN
CRL M P NO 01/2022 IN M C NO 147/2019
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
PA TO JUDGE
