IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 21244 of 2007(S) -------------------------- OP.1025/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- T.SURESHKUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O B.THANKAPPAN, 'NANMA', T.C.14/573(1), POTHUJANAM LANE, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH SRI.K.GOPAKUMAR SMT.K.L.SREEKALA SRI.K.JITHIN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. PARIJATHAM, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O. DR. T.SURESH KUMAR, OTTUPURA HOUSE, KERALASSERY P.O., PALAKKAD. 2. NANTHITHA, AGED 6 ½ YEARS, D/O DR.T.SURESH KUMAR, OTTUPURA HOUSE, KERALASSERY P.O., PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2008 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 26305 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.21244/2007 S APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT: EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 26/04/2006 IN O.P.NO.1025/2008 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) Nos. 21244 & 26305 of 2007 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Writ Petition No.21244/2007 is at the instance of the husband in a matrimonial dispute, who is aggrieved by the order dated 26.3.2007 in O.P.No.1025/06 of the Family Court, Palakkad. Writ Petition No.26305/2007 is filed by the wife challenging the adequacy of the quantum fixed towards litigation expenses and alimony pendente lite by the same order. 2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the dispute are the following. The parties are husband and wife and the marriage was on 29.11.1998. The husband at the time of marriage, had a daughter in his first wife and he is a paediatrician running a private consultation clinic at Kazhakuttom in Trivandrum District. The wife was a nurse in Indian Army at the time of marriage and she left the occupation after the marriage. They have got a daughter in the present wedlock. The main proceedings pending before the Family Court is the petition for divorce filed by the husband alleging cruelty under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The same stands WPC 21244/07 & 26305/2007 -2- transferred to the Family Court, Palakkad at the instance of the wife as per order in Tr.P.(C) No.15/2004. In the said proceedings the wife claimed alimony at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month for herself and Rs.4,000/- per month for her child under Section 24 of the Act and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses. As per the order impugned, the Family Court has fixed alimony at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month for the wife and Rs.2,000/- for the child. For litigation expenses, Rs.3,000/- was awarded. 3. We have heard learned counsel on either side. We interacted with the parties to know whether a re-union is possible. It has come out that it is not possible. This is evident from the report submitted by the Consultant Psychologist appointed by this Court. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the wife pointed out that going by the decisions of this court in Radhakumari v. K.M.K. Nair (1982 KLT 417) and Nalini v. Velu (1984 KLT 790), the claim has to be allowed at least from the date of service of summons in the main petition and not from the date of application. It is also submitted that the wife was forced to resign her job as a Nurse in the rank of Captain and the respondent is a busy paediatrician. The amount ordered is not sufficient to meet the expenses. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21244/2007 submitted that the court below has failed to appreciate the over all circumstances while fixing the amount as now ordered. It is stated that the WPC 21244/07 & 26305/2007 -3- wife is having a huge bank balance out of which monthly amounts are received as interest and she is getting pension from the Army. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. Going by the principles stated in Radhakumari's case (supra) and Nalini's case (supra) it is clear that maintenance ought to have been granted from the date of service of summons. Accordingly, we modify the order and hold that the child should be paid maintenance from the said date. For the present, we are not interfering with the grant of interim maintenance to the wife at Rs.3,000/- per month and the litigation expenses ordered. The arrears shall be paid by the husband within a period of six weeks from today, after adjusting the amounts already paid towards maintenance of the child. 6. We find no merit in the contentions of the petitioner/husband in Writ Petition No.21244/2007 that the maintenance granted is on a higher side. The wife is not having any job or avocation now and she has to maintain the child also. The husband is a busy paediatrician which fact is WPC 21244/07 & 26305/2007 -4- evident from the records. Therefore, Writ Petition No.21244/007 is dismissed and Writ Petition NO.26305/2007 is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/