IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 OP (FC).No. 2406 of 2011(R) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 7/6/2011 IN IA 6262/2010 IN OP.37/2010 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- SALEEM, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.VEERAN, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE,MUKARIKUNNU DESOM,CHELAKKARA VILLAGE,THALAPPILLY TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT,REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SYED MOHAMMED,AGED 49 YEARS,S/O.KARUNGOTTU THODI ABDUL RAHIMAN, VENGALLOOR DESOM,THALAPPILLY TALUK,THRISSUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. SAIRABANU, S/O.LATE ABDUL LATHEEF, W/O.SALEEM, B-2,KARTHIKA, FLAT NO.2, CAPITAL GALAXY, LENIN NAGAR, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR-680002. 2. MINOR ALIMA, D/O.SALEEM, KARTHIKA, FLAT NO.2,CAPITAL GALAXY,LENIN NAGAR, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR-680002. 3. MINOR MOHAMMED ALIM, S/O.SALEEM, KARHTIKA, FLATNO.2, CAPITAL GALAXY, LENIN NAGAR, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR-680002. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN OP(FC).2406/11 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP.37/2010 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.6262/2010 IN OP NO.37/2010 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COURTER IN I.A.NO.6262/2010 IN OP NO.37/2010 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.6.2011 IN I.A.6262/2010 IN OP NO.37/2010 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- O.P(FC).No.2406 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. This original petition filed under Article 227 is by the husband challenging an order for interim maintenance. Admittedly, the wife and two minor children aged 7 and 5 reside in a flat. While the petitioner may concede the impugned order to the extent it is in favour of the minors, he says that in so far as the wife is concerned, it was his specific case before the court below that she misused her power of attorney and sold off some of his properties and has bank deposit to the tune of Rs.8 ½ lakhs and the income generated therefrom by way of interest would be around Rs.10,000/-. The court below did not have any material in support of this plea of the husband. Yet, that issue can be agitated on evidence at trial of the main matter. As of now, the undisputed facts are that the first petitioner before the court below is the wife and the other two, the children, of the OPFC.2406/11 2 petitioner before us. The husband does not attribute any other source of income, by way of employment or otherwise, on which the wife could depend. Under such circumstances, we do not find any error of jurisdiction or legal infirmity, including any perversity in the appreciation of facts and evidence inviting exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, we would confirm the impugned order and dismiss the original petition subject to the right of the husband to demonstrate before the court below in the final proceedings regarding any income that the wife may have, either referable to his assets or as her own independent income. Obviously, in molding the final relief, the Family Court would take care of all relevant facts and circumstances, including materials evidence. For the aforesaid reasons, this original petition is dismissed in limine. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, Judge. kkb.28/7.