IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23898 of 2009(R) -------------------------- OP.543/2008 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SANTHOSH, 31 YEARS, S/O.E.BALAKRISHNAN, ELAMATTATH HOUSE, 213, ANAPPAR PALAYAM P.O., RAM NAGAR, COIMBATORE, REP. BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER E.BALAKRISHNAN, ELAMATTATH HOUSE, KUTTANKULANGARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.I.M.MANOJ RESPONDENT: ------------------- JISHA, 21 YEARS, VALIYAVEETTIL, KARAT HOUSE, NEAR G.V.H.S. SCHOOL, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.23898 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. Petitioner is the husband of the respondent. The petitioner has filed an application for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent. That application is pending as O.P.No.543/2008 before the Family Court, Thrissur. During the pendency of that application, the respondent/wife filed I.A.No.1033/08 claiming maintenance, pending disposal of the O.P. That petition was allowed by the Family Court by Exhibit P3 order, which reads as follows: “Heard. Interim maintenance allowed @ Rs.750/- per month.” 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. As the same is only an interlocutory order from which no appeal lies under section 19 of the Family Courts Act, this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed to assail the said direction for payment of interim maintenance. W.P.(C)No.23898/09 -2- 3. What is the grievance? Marriage is admitted. That the petitioner does not want to reside with the respondent is evident from the fact that he only claims divorce on the alleged ground of mental ailment of the respondent. There is no contention that the wife is employed or that she has means of her own. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the only contention of the petitioner is that the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid is excessive. 4. The amount ordered is Rs.750/- per mensem. Even reckoning the petitioner as just an able bodied person, the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid cannot be held to be excessive or perverse. At any rate, there is absolutely no justification in the prayer for invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 to interfere with the quantum of maintenance fixed as per the impugned order. 5. The impugned order, we note, is not a speaking order. But, in the nature of the contentions raised, we are unable to agree that the want of speech in the impugned order can be reckoned as a reason to interfere with the impugned order invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of W.P.(C)No.23898/09 -3- India. In short, we find no merit in this Writ Petition. The same is dismissed. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn