Kerala High Court
Shebin Baby John vs Aan Mary Ivan on 10 October, 2024
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2024:KER:75464
OP(CRL.) NO. 542 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 18TH ASWINA, 1946
OP(CRL.) NO. 542 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.04.2024 IN CRMP
No.1/2023 IN MC NO.182 OF 2023 OF FAMILY COURT, ADOOR
PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :
SHEBIN BABY JOHN, AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. LATE BABY YOHANNAN, KUDASSANADU P.O.,
POOZHIKADU, KURAMPALA VILLAGE, PANDALAM,
ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MRS.
MARIYAMA BABY, W/O.LATE BABY YOHANNAN, AGED 58
YEARS, RESIDING AT VILAYIL KIZHAKKETHIL,
KUDASSANADU, P.O. POOZHIKADU, KURAMPALA VILLAGE,
PANDALAM, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.PIN-
689 501.
BY ADVS.
S.K.KRISHNAKUMAR
MANEKSHA D.
V.M.MARY HARSHA
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PETITIONER :
AAN MARY IVAN, AGED 31 YEARS
D/O. IVAN DANIEL,KOLLAMPARAMPIL HOUSE,
KUDASSANADU P.O., POOZHIKADU,
KURAMPALA VILLAGE, PANDALAM, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 501.
BY ADVS.
JACOB P. ALEX
JOSEPH P.ALEX(K/1-C/2002)
MANU SANKAR P.(K/000823/2018)
AMAL AMIR ALI(K/000773/2019)
THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.10.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:75464
OP(CRL.) NO. 542 OF 2024
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
......................................................
O.P.(Crl) No.542 of 2024
...................................................
Dated this the 10th day of October, 2024
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges an order of the Family Court, Adoor in
Crl.M.P.No.1/2023 in M.C.No.182/2023 directing payment of interim
maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent.
2. Sri.S.K.Krishnakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner
questioned, the correctness of the impugned order, and submitted
that he had filed an application for production of certain
documents from an establishment, where the respondent is allegedly
working. According to the learned counsel, without reference to
the said application and without even disposing of the said
application, the Family Court went ahead and directed payment of
interim maintenance. The learned counsel submitted that the
respondent is employed and is earning sufficient income, which is a
factor which ought to have entailed dismissal of the application for
interim maintenance and even the main case itself.
2024:KER:75464
OP(CRL.) NO. 542 OF 2024
3. On the other hand, Sri.Jacob Alex, the learned counsel for the
respondent, submitted that the Family Court had considered all the
aspects of the case, and that in an application for interim
maintenance, the contentions now raised are not relevant, and also
that, the impugned order does not warrant any interference.
4. On a perusal of the objection filed by the petitioner, it is noticed
that he had taken a specific contention that the respondent wife is
employed. Crl.M.P.No.5/2024 filed on 29.02.2024 specifically
sought for a direction to give the list of employees and the details
of salary paid to the employees by issuing summons to the
particular establishment. The said application concededly has not
been disposed of nor even referred to in the impugned order.
When a specific contention has been raised, that the wife is suitably
employed, earning a substantial income, I am of the view that
without even considering or disposing of the said application, the
Family Court erred in issuing Ext.P6 order. Therefore, I hold that
the impugned order is perverse, warranting interference by this
Court.
5. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P6 order and direct the Family Court,
2024:KER:75464
OP(CRL.) NO. 542 OF 2024
Adoor, to re-consider the matter afresh in accordance with law,
after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to both parties.
The original petition is allowed.
sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AMV/10/10/2024
2024:KER:75464
OP(CRL.) NO. 542 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 542/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
DATED 4-1-2024 EXECUTED BY THE REVISION
PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF HIS MOTHER
MARIYAMA BABY
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED IN M.C.
NO. 182 OF 2023 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY
COURT, ADOOR
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF CRL.M.P. NO.1 OF 2023 DATED
31-12-2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE
THE LOWER COURT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED
BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P-3
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF CR.M.P. NO. 5 OF 2023 IN M.C.
NO. 182 OF 2023 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY
COURT ADOOR
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19-4-2024
PASSED BY THE LOWER COURT ON EXT. P-3
