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 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933 OP (FC).No. 3295 of 2011(R) --------------------------- OP.10/2011 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER -------------------- VIKAS VISWAN, S/O.VISWAMBARAN, ACHUMANA, THAYYAL VEEDU,EDAPPALLY.P.O., KOCHI, NOW WORKING AT NO.602/3, ELCOL ECONOMIC ZONE, SHOLINGANALUR VILLAGE, MEDAVACUM HIGH ROAD, SHOLINGANALUR, CHENNAI-600 119. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. LAKSHMI, D/O.SUNDARAN, POLLENKULAMBU, PAKKAMKALAM, PATTANCHERRY.P.O., CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 532. 2. KAIRALI, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.VISWAMBARAN, ACHUMANA, THAYYAL VEEDU, EDAPPALLY.P.O., KOCHI, PIN-682 024. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 21/2011 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY FO THE COUNTER STATEMENT EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER RESPONDENTSD EXTS: NIL ks. R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== O.P.(FC)NO. 3295 OF 2011 ============================ Dated this the 13th day of October 2011 ORDER R.Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with Ext.P3 order passed by the Family Court. By the said impugned order, during the pendency of O.P. 10/2011 pending before the Family court, the Family Court has directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.7500/- as interim maintenance pending disposal of the O.P.to the claimant/his wife. 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is his grievance? The learned counsel submits that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Whether under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act or not, the power of the Family court to issue interim direction for payment of maintenance cannot possibly be questioned. In these circumstances, we find no merit in that challenge raised against OPFC 3295/2011 2 the direction to pay interim maintenance in the impugned order. It is next contended that the petitioner has already been bound to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per mensem as maintenance as per order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. passed by the Family court. The learned counsel argues that the amount of Rs.7500/- has been ordered to be paid in addition to the said amount of Rs.10,000/-. We find no merit in this contention. There is nothing to indicate that the amount of Rs.7500/- ordered to be paid as interim maintenance under Ext.P3 is in addition to the amount of Rs.10,000/- which the petitioner is ordered to pay under Section 125 Cr.P.C. If necessary, the petitioner can seek appropriate clarifications from the Family Court on this aspect. In any view of the matter, we are not persuaded to agree that the direction to pay an amount of Rs.7500/- per mensem by the petitioner to his wife deserves interference by invoking the extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction available to this Court. 3. There is a dispute on the quantum of interim maintenance awarded also. Though it is contended that the claimant-wife is employed, the Family Court took note of the fact that even her place of employment is not specified by the petitioner in his attempt to oppose the prayer for interim OPFC 3295/2011 3 maintenance. The petitioner admittedly is employed as Soft Ware Engineer in Chennai. 4. This O.P(FC), in these circumstances, is dismissed with the above observations. Sd/- R.BASANT, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. true copy P.S. TO JUDGE