IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933 OP (FC).No. 3256 of 2011(R) --------------------------------------- MC.752/2010 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER (S): -------------------- ABDUL NAZER,S/O.MUHAMMED, PUTHANARI VEEDU,UGRAPURAM P.O, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,REP.BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ABDUL KARIM, S/O.AHMEDKUTTY HAJI,NALAKATH KALRIKKAL HOUSE, THAZHATHANGADI,P.O AREACODE,PIN 673 639. BY ADVS. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN SRI.P.V.BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THANOOJA,W/O.ABDUL NAZER, KARUVARATHODI VEEDU,MELAKKAM, MARUVAMBRAM P.O, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN 676 123. 2. RANA FATHIMA,D/O.ABDUL NAZER, REP.BY GUARDIAN (MOTEHR)THABOOJA, W/O.ABDUL NAZER,KARUVARATHODI VEEDU, MELAKKAM, KARUVAMBRAM P.O, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN 676 123. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss OP(FC) NO.3256/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1:-THE TRUE COPY OF M.C NO.752/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM DATED 30.07.2010. EXHIBIT P2:-THE TRUE COPY C.M.P NO.1598/2010 IN M.C NO.752/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM DATED 15.12.2010. EXHIBIT P3:-THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN M.C NO. 752/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM DATED 16.11.2010. EXHIBIT P4:-THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN C.M.P NO. 1598/2010 IN M.C NO. 752/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM, DATED 05.01.2011. EXHIBIT P5:-THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN C.M.P NO. 1598/2010 IN M.C NO.752/2010 BY THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM DATED 10.05.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE tss R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * O.P.(F.C.) No.3256 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of October 2011 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India requesting this Court to invoke the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of superintendence to interfere with Ext.P5 order passed by the Family Court, Malappuram. 2. The claimants are the wife, aged 35 years and the minor child aged 6 years of the petitioner herein. It is submitted that the couple have two other elder children also in the wedlock. Claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C was filed by the claimants - wife and minor child. That petition was filed on 30/07/2010. Subsequently, an application dated 15/12/2010 was filed by the claimants seeking directions for payment of interim maintenance. The Family Court, by the O.P.(F.C.) No. 3256 of 2011 2 impugned order, directed payment of an amount of Rs.2,500/- to the wife and Rs.1,000/- to the minor child per mensum from the date of the original petition, that is 30/07/2010. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner first of all submits that the quantum of maintenance awarded to the wife and minor child is excessive and unreasonable. Admittedly, the appellant is working abroad. According to him, he gets an income of only Rs.2,850/- Riyals. The Indian Rupee equivalent of that will admittedly be around Rs.30,000/-. The wife aged 35 years and minor child aged 6 years have to keep their body and soul together and in any view of the matter, we are unable to agree that the quantum of monthly maintenance awarded is excessive as to warrant invocation of our supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The counsel brings to our notice that there are two other children who are in the custody of the petitioner and whose expenses are all being met by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the claimants herein, wife and minor child, are also residing in the property belonging to O.P.(F.C.) No. 3256 of 2011 3 the petitioner herein. Even after giving due allowance to all the circumstances, if true, we are unable to agree that the quantum of monthly maintenance awarded is excessive. At any rate, we are satisfied that our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not deserve to be invoked. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is one legal defect also in the impugned order inasmuch as the interim maintenance has been ordered to be paid not from the date of the application for interim maintenance but from the date of the application for maintenance. This is contrary to the specific stipulations of Section 125(2) Cr.P.C, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. We remind ourselves that any and every innocuous inadequacy in the impugned order shall not persuade us to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. We take note of the nature of the relief granted and the consequences. We are not at all persuaded to agree that the alleged non-compliance with the specific language of Section 125(2) is sufficient or justifies the plea for invocation of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. O.P.(F.C.) No. 3256 of 2011 4 6. This O.P.(F.C.) is, in these circumstances, dismissed in limini. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge O.P.(F.C.) No. 3256 of 2011 5 O.P.(F.C.) No. 3256 of 2011 6 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010