IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16922 of 2010(R) -------------------------- OP.1889/2009 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- NIBU NAIR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, AARANYALAYAM, MANAKKAD, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SMITHA NAIR, D/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, 37/2991, CHAITHRAM, PONOTH ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. 2. PRANAV NAIR, S/O.NIBU NAIR, AGED 4 YEARS, (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER SMITHA NAIR, 37/2991, CHAITHRAM, PONOTH ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 16922 OF 2010 ============================ DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2010 JUDGMENT Basant,J. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed to challenge an interim direction for payment of maintenance. Th petitioner is the husband and the respondents are the wife and minor child, aged 30 years and 4 years. The O.P.was filed before the Family Court claiming maintenance. Pending disposal of the O.P., interim maintenance was also claimed. The claim was for an amount of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively for the claimants. The marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. Liability to pay maintenance is not disputed. That the petitioner-husband is employed abroad and earns a salary of Rs.55,000/- is not disputed. The assertion that in addition to the salary, he gets an amount of Rs.20,000/- by way of allowance is also admitted. The Family Court considered the claim and directed payment of an amount of Rs.5,000/- each for the wife and the child per W.P.(C)NO.16922/2010 2 mensem. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the interim direction for payment of maintenance allowance. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the identical amount of Rs.5,000/- granted to the 30 year old wife and the 4 year old child is not justified. The claim itself was Rs.25,000/- and Rs.15,000/-. In the claim itself, there is a realistic acceptance that the child requires less as compared to the wife. The court below did not take into account this reality. In these circumstances, the impugned direction calls for interference, it is urged. 2. We must alertly remind ourselves of the nature, quality and contours of our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction cannot and will not be invoked by us unless we are satisfied that there is some gross error, perversity or failure of justice. We are unable to detect any such vice in the impugned order. The Family Court directed payment of an amount of Rs.5,000/- each (Rs.10,000/- in all) to the wife and minor child as interim maintenance. We are not persuaded to invoke our extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order. That the differential has not been maintained in the impugned W.P.(C)NO.16922/2010 3 direction, considering the differential claim made does not at all persuade us to interfere with the impugned order. The order impugned, according to us, is absolutely fair, reasonable, just and cogent. The mere fact that the wife has not been granted more or the child has not been granted less is no reason for us to interfere with the same. 3. This writ petition in these circumstances is dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks.