IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 RPFC.No. 338 of 2008() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/09/2008 IN MP.334/2008 IN MC.273/2007 of Family Court, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------ SHINU, S/O. SIVAN, AGED 30 YEARS, MANATTI PARAMBU, NAYARAMBALAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR SRI.V.B.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. SAISHA, D/O.SASI, AGED 24 YEARS, NEDIYARA VEEDU, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE, KOCHI. 2. ATHULJITH, D/O. SHINU, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SAISHA. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.338 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this R.P.F.C challenges a direction for payment of interim maintenance to his wife and child at the rate of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.700/- per mensum. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is admitted. Separate residence is admitted. There is conflicting explanation for the separate residence of the parties. In the application for interim maintenance, the learned Judge of the Family Court directed payment of the amounts referred above. Liability to pay maintenance to the child is not disputed at all. 2. The short contention raised is that the quantum of interim maintenance awarded is excessive and that the wife is not, at any rate, entitled for separate maintenance. The petitioner is shown to be a marble worker/polisher. According to him, he gets an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensum . According to the claimants, he gets an income of about Rs.10,000/- per mensum 3. In the nature of contentions raised and the pleadings as also the averments in the affidavits filed, I am unable to find any reason to justify or warrant invocation of the extraordinary R.P.F.C.No.338/08 2 inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to interfere with the impugned order. I am satisfied that the amount awarded and the direction to pay amounts do appear to be absolutely fair, just and reasonable on the basis of the materials presently available. In case the learned Judge ultimately finds that the wife is not entitled for payment of maintenance, appropriate directions for adjustment of the amount paid towards maintenance of the child can of course be sought. In any view of the matter, I am not persuaded to agree that the interim direction warrants any interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in his submission that every endeavour must be made by the learned Judge of the Family Court to dispose of the maintenance claim itself as expeditiously as possible. I need only mention that considering the nature of contentions and the issues involved, it must be possible for the learned Judge of the Family Court to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of six months from the date on which a copy of this order is placed before that court by the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.338/08 3 R.P.F.C.No.338/08 4 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008