Kerala High Court
Jithin K. Thomas vs Preethi on 14 June, 2022
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
RPFC NO. 179 OF 2022
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,
MEILILA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT - , PIN - 691508
2 IZABELLE ELSA JITHIN (MINOR)
AGED 6 YEARS
D/O JITHIN K. THOMAS, MATHRU BHAVAN, KIZHAKKE THERUVU,
MEILILA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK,
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:
RPFC NO. 179 OF 2022
2
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
RPFC NO. 179 OF 2022
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
RPFC NO. 179 OF 2022
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
