Kerala High Court
Nikhil P.S vs Akhila on 30 October, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2025:KER:81998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1947
OP (FC) NO. 628 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.08.2025 IN M.P.219/2025 IN MC
NO.40 OF 2025 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
NIKHIL P.S., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O SUKUMARAN P.P
PAMBINKAVIL HOUSE, ARYAMPADAM P.O MUNDATHICODE,
WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680601
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA
SMT.A.LOWSY
SMT.T.SWETHA
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
AKHILA, AGED 31 YEARS, D/O SUBRAHMANIAN.C
C/O SHOPIYHA SARATH PAMBINKAVIL HOUSE,
PUTHURUTHY P.O WADAKKANCHERY , THRISSUR,
PIN - 680601
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:81998
OP(FC) 628/25
2
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The petitioner calls into question the order of the learned
Family Court, Thrissur, in M.P.No.219/2025 in M.C.No.40/2025.
2. The above M.C. was filed by the wife of the petitioner
- the respondent herein, seeking maintenance; and she filed M.P.
No.219/2025 therein, seeking interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/-
per month, on the assertion that the petitioner is earning more
than Rs.60,000/- per month.
3. Though the petitioner, admittedly, filed his counter
statement before the learned Family Court, he refused to file his
Assets and Liabilities Disclosure Statement, as required by the
binding precedent of the Honourable Supreme Court; and
consequently, the learned Family Court issued Ext.P4 order
directing the petitioner to pay Rs.15,000/- as interim maintenance
to the respondent, from the date of the petition till further orders
are issued.
2025:KER:81998
OP(FC) 628/25
4. Smt.A.Lowsy - learned counsel for the petitioner,
argued that, had her client been given an opportunity of filing his
Assets/Liabilities Disclosure Statement, it would have been possible
for him to have established that his income is less than
Rs.60,000/-, as also to show his liabilities, and his obligation to
take care of his parents. She, therefore, pleaded that Ext.P4 be set
aside and the learned Family Court be directed to reconsider
M.P.No.219/2025, after affording one more opportunity to her
client to file the aforesaid Statement.
5. It is evident from the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner itself that, what the petitioner seeks is
an order in lenitude, rather than as a matter of right. We cannot
find fault with the learned Family Court in having issued Ext.P4,
when the petitioner refused to file his Assets/Liabilities Disclosure
Statement, even though he had opportunities to do so, particularly
before, along with, or after he had filed his counter statement.
6. However, since the learned counsel for the petitioner
2025:KER:81998
OP(FC) 628/25
says that it was an inadvertent omission from her client's side to
have not filed the Disclosure Statement, we are of the view that
he ought to be given necessary opportunity; however, on
appropriate terms, so that the respondent will also be not
prejudiced.
7. In such perspective, we dispose of this Original Petition
with the following directions:
a) Ext.P4 order is sustained as of now; but with liberty
being reserved to the petitioner to move the learned Family Court
with an application for modifying it, on the strength of an
Assets/Liabilities Disclosure Statement, which he shall file along
with the application.
b) The afore, however, shall be on condition that the
petitioner will deposit the amounts as ordered by the learned
Family Court in Ext.P4 up to the date of his application to be
filed in terms of the afore reserved liability, within a period of
two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
2025:KER:81998
OP(FC) 628/25
c) If the afore deposit is made, then the learned Family
Court will proceed to dispose of the application to be filed by the
petitioner seeking modification of Ext.P4 in terms of the afore,
after affording necessary opportunities to both sides.
d) We further order that the respondent will be at liberty
to receive an amount calculated at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per
month out of the deposit to be made, as an interim measure,
which will be subject to the further orders to be issued by the
learned Family Court as per the afore directions.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
RR
2025:KER:81998
OP(FC) 628/25
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 628/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION (MC 40/2025)
PREFERRED BY THE PREFERRED BY THE
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY
COURT THRISSUR DATED 17.01.2025
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY
APPLICATION DATED 17.01.2025 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT SEEKING INTERIM MAINTENANCE TO
THE TUNE OF RS. 15,000 PER MONTH
4.Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER / OBJECTION
FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT. P2
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (MP NO:219/2025)
IN MC 40/2025 DATED 04.06.2025
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE OF THE ORDER MISCELLANEOUS
PETITION (MP NO:219/2025) IN MC 40/2025
DATED 20.08.2025 ISSUED BY FAMILY COURT,
THRISSUR
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION NUMBERED C.M.P
1421/2025 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER
SECTION '144(3) OF THE BNSS' DATED
11.09.2025 SEEKING TO STRIKE ORDER OF THE
DEFENSE
