Kerala High Court
Vinodkumar vs Amitha U.H on 12 June, 2024
Author: Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1946
OP (FC) NO. 380 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
VINODKUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS
S/O SREEKUMAR, MOORKATHU VEEDU, PAZHAYANGADI,
PARUTHUR (POST), PALLIPURAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679305
BY ADVS.
P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)
THAREEQ ANVER K.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 AMITHA U.H, AGED 33 YEARS
D/O VIMALA, ULLATTIL HOUSE, DESAMANGALAM POST,
THALAPPILLI TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 679102
2 GAURI (MINOR), AGED 7 YEARS, D/O AMITHA U.H.,
RESIDING AT ULLATTIL HOUSE,DESAMANGALAM POST,
THALAPPILLI TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN- 679102
(PETITIONER NAMED HER AS 'VARSHINI"), (MINOR 2ND
RESPONDENT IS REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AMITHA U.H, 1ST
RESPONDENT), PIN - 679102
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2
O.P.(F.C.)No.380 of 2024
JUDGMENT
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
This petition is filed challenging the interim order passed by the
Family Court, Ottappalam in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.P.No.157 of 2022. The
Original Petition was filed by the wife and child against the husband and
his mother for return of gold ornaments and also for past and future
maintenance.
2. An interlocutory application was filed claiming interim
maintenance and litigation expenses from the 1st respondent.
2. The Family Court took note of the contentions raised by the
petitioner in the objection. Taking note of the fact that grant of interim
maintenance is to prevent vagrancy, the Family Court proceeded to grant
interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,500/- to the wife and a sum of
Rs.3,000/- to the child from the date of order, i.e., on 06.02.2024.
3. Sri.Mohanan, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, submits that the order passed by the Family Court cannot be
sustained. He would urge that the wife is well employed as a nurse and
is earning sufficient income. It is further submitted that none of the
attendant circumstances were considered by the Family Court, while
granting the interim order.
4. We have considered submissions advanced and have gone
through the impugned order.
5. In the affidavit filed by the wife before the Family Court, she
has stated that the respondent is having an income to the tune of
Rs.80,000/- per mensem and other assets. The wife had claimed interim
maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- and at the rate of Rs.8,000/- to
the minor child, who is just 7 years of age. Though the petitioner had
raised a contention that the wife is employed as a nurse and a good sum
by way of salary, he has not chosen to elaborate on the same. The wife
had stated in the affidavit filed by her that she was employed and was
earning a meager amount and the same was not sufficient to bring up a
baby. What the Court granted by way of maintenance to the child is
Rs.3,000/- per mensem, which would amount to Rs.100/- per day. It
does not need much elaboration that the said amount would be just
about sufficient to bring up a toddler, given the spiralling expenses, for
food, medicine, vaccination etc. What has been granted to the wife is just
Rs.4500/- as an interim measure. In Rajnesh v. Neha1, the Apex Court
(2021) 2 SCC 324
has relied on the principles laid down in Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi2
and it was held that the object of these provisions being to prevent
vagrancy and destitution. The Courts are to find out as to what is
required by the wife to maintain a standard of living which is neither
luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly consistent with the status of the
family. The needs and requirements of the wife for such moderate living
can be fairly determined, only if her separate income, also, is taken into
account together with the earnings of the husband and his commitments.
It cannot be forgotten that Maintenance laws have been enacted as a
measure of social justice to provide recourse to dependent wife and
children for their financial support, so as to prevent them from falling into
destitution and vagrancy which is in tune with the mandate under Article
15(3) of the Constitution of India.
6. The scope and ambit of the power and jurisdiction by a High
Court under Article 227 was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.3 It was held that the High
Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of
hardships or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of
the subordinate courts or Tribunals. The power under Article 227 is to be
(1975) 2 SCC 386
JT 2001 (7) SC 657
exercised sparingly in appropriate cases like when there is no evidence at
all to justify or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can
possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or Tribunal has come to
and that it is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to
ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to
correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is
justified or can be supported. Having considered the facts and
circumstances, we are of the view that the Family court has rightly
ordered the payment of maintenance to the wife and child. It would be
open to the petitioner to bring on record materials at the appropriate
stage, which shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed.
We find no reason to interfere at this stage.
This petition is dismissed.
sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
sd/-
P.M.MANOJ
JUDGE
das
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 380/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF 157/2022 DATED 09.02.2024 ON
THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT FILED ON DEC,
.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND HIS MOTHER
IN O.P. 157/2022 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY
COURT, OTTAPALAM
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF O.P. 558/2019 DATED 27.08.2019
ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED
09.02.2022 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN
O.P.558/2019 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT,
OTTAPALAM
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION O.P. 156/2022
DATED 21.02.2022 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY
COURT, OTTAPALAM
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT DATED
28.12.2023 IN O.P.156 OF 2022 ON THE FILES
OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF PETITION GUARDIAN O.P.
1782/2022 DATED 19.07.2022 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER AGAINST THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND
HER MOTHER ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT,
THRISSUR
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 28.12.2023
FILED IN SUPPORT OF I.A.2 OF 2023 IN O.P.
157/2022 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT,
OTTAPALAM BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2024 IN
O.P. 157/2022 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT,
OTTAPALAM
