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 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 17762 of 2009(R) -------------------------- OP.347/2008 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER ------------------------- SANTHA GANGADHARAN, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.DR.GANGADHARAN, C/O.CHERRIYAN (RENTED HOUSE), MAMOOTIL HOUSE, MAMALLA (PO), KAKKADUKARA, THIRUVANGULAM (VIA), ERNAKULAM (DT). BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT ------------------------- DR.GANGADHARAN, EDAPPALAYIL VEEDU, DHANYA CLINIC, CHOONDI, VADAYAMBADI (PO), PUTHAN KURISU (VIA), ERNAKULAM (DT). SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 17762 OF 2009 ============================ DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court to assail an order passed by the Family Court rejecting her claim for interim maintenance. Ext.P8 is the impugned order. A reading of Ext.P8 shows that the claim for interim maintenance has been rejected for the short reason that there is a denial of marriage by the respondent in the counter statement filed by him. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Family Court did not at all consider the relevant aspects and has mechanically rejected the prayer for interim maintenance without due and proper application of mind. 3. We find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly the parties had fallen love. Admittedly, they were residing together for a long period on the WPC.17762/2009 -2- strength of an agreement of marriage. Admittedly, children were born in that relationship. Without dispute, they had held out to the word that they are husband and wife. Children have grown up and have got married. Of course, there has been subsequent disputes between the parties. In these circumstances, we find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was absolutely puerile and perverse to reject the claim for interim maintenance on the short ground that there was a dispute about the strict validity of the marriage. We are satisfied that reasonableness demands that the prayer for interim maintenance should not have been rejected on that sole ground. 4. The respondent is a Doctor. He allegedly runs a private medical clinic by name Dhanya Clinic. That fact is seriously disputed. Admittedly, he receives pension. Ext.P6 document relating to the payment of D.C.R.G.and pension shows that substantive pension of Rs.6951/- is payable to the respondents. He is a qualified medical practitioner and it would be reasonable to assume that he has income also. 5. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the WPC.17762/2009 -3- interests of justice shall be served eminently by directing the Family Court to expeditiously dispose of M.C.No.347/2008 and by directing payment of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per mensem from the date of M.P.No.897/2008 till the disposal of the M.C. 6. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. Directions for payment of interim maintenance is issued as shown above. The Family Court shall dispose of the M.C. itself as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date on which a copy of this judgment is placed before the Family court. 7. Handover copy of this judgment to both the learned counsel for immediate production before the Family Court. Sd/- R. BASANT, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE TRUE COPY ks. P.S. TO JUDGE WPC.17762/2009 -4-