IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25659 of 2010(R) -------------------------- OP.1360/2009 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- OMANAKUTTAN,AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN,LAKSHMY SADANAM,KOTTAKKUPPURAM, CLAPPANA(P.O),KARUNAGAPPALLY,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SREEJA,AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.OMANAKUTTAN,MANNUSSERIL,PEROOR(P.O), KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.25659 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August 2010 J U D G M E N T Basant,J This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/husband against an order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act directing payment of interim maintenance pending litigation. 2. It is admitted that the petitioner herein has filed O.P.No.1360/2009 claiming a decree for divorce on the ground that the respondent herein, his wife, suffers from mental unsoundness. In that petition, the respondent/wife, after entering appearance, filed a claim for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. An amount of Rs.3,000/- per mensum each for maintenance of herself and the child was claimed. An amount of Rs.25,000/- was claimed as litigation expenses. The court below, by the impugned order, directed payment of an amount of Rs.2,000/- per mensum each for the wife and the child. The petitioner was further directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel W.P.C.No.25659 of 2010 2 for the petitioner fairly submits that the order, in so far as it relates to the child, is not challenged. Further the learned counsel submits that award of maintenance to the wife is not justified. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is willing to maintain the wife on condition that she returns to him. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Judge of the Family Court, it is submitted. 4. We find absolutely no merit in that contention. Divorce has been claimed on the ground of unsoundness of mind of the wife and the mere fact that the husband, who had claimed such divorce, had in the course of counselling as a matter of strategy, offered to take the wife along with him is definitely not a reason to deny maintenance pendente lite to the wife. At any rate, we find no merit in this contention at all. We are satisfied that it is not necessary to invoke the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order. At any rate, at the instance of the petitioner, the impugned order does not warrant interference. It is submitted that the respondent has not challenged the impugned order so far. W.P.C.No.25659 of 2010 3 5. About the quantum of maintenance awarded, the child has been awarded Rs.2,000/- per mensum and the same has not been challenged. Admittedly, the petitioner, is a Police Constable and it is asserted by the claimant that his monthly income exceeds Rs.10,000/-. In these circumstances, there can be no worthwhile challenge against the quantum of maintenance also. We are satisfied that this writ petition does not deserve admission. It would be heartless and insensitive for this Court to admit this writ petition and order notice in such a petition challenging the impugned order. 6. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.25659 of 2010 4 W.P.C.No.25659 of 2010 5 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 19/07/2010