IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 6330 of 2009(R) ------------------------- OP.685/2007 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUDHEENDRAN, S/O.NEELAKANDAN, AGED 74 YEARS, DONAVILLA, GOKUL NAGAR, NALLEPELLY, PALAKKAD NOW RESIDING AT M S NIVAS, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C RESPONDENT(S): --------------- RATHI, D/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 54 YEARS, DONAVILLA, GOKUL NAGAR, NALLEPELLY, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. FOR R SRI.LIJU. M.P FOR R GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(C).No.6330 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J The petitioner has filed an application under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act for declaration that the marriage solemnised between him and the respondent is null and void. According to him, there is no husband-wife relationship between him and the respondent herein, in spite of such alleged marriage. 2. While that petition was pending, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for interim maintenance pending litigation and also for litigation expenses. Though sufficient opportunity was allegedly granted to the petitioner to file a counter statement, he did not file any counter affidavit or statement. The learned Judge of the Family Court, thereupon, proceeded to pass an order under Section 24 directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.1,500/- per mensum and further to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- as litigation expenses. The petitioner filed an application for W.P.(C)No.6330/09 2 review. That petition was dismissed by the impugned order. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the direction for payment of interim maintenance under Section 24 and also the order passed in the review petition. 4. First of all, it is contended that sufficient opportunity to raise objections was not given to the petitioner. The court below has considered this in detail in the order passed in the review application. We are satisfied that ample and sufficient opportunity has already been granted and the petitioner, who did not raise any objections till the order was passed, despite availability of sufficient opportunity, cannot, now be heard to complain about denial of opportunity. The challenge on that ground, must hence fail. 4. The next contention raised is that there is no husband wife relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and in these circumstances, Section 24 can have no application to them. This contention is found to be without any merit. Use of the expression husband and wife in Section 24 cannot justify a contention that the marriage which is sought to be declared null and void must be held to be valid to entitle the woman to relief W.P.(C)No.6330/09 3 under Section 24. Section 24 uses the expression husband and wife to refer to the parties of a marriage admittedly solemnised and the use of those expression under Section 24 will not justify a contention that the parties who seek decree of nullity cannot claim under Section 24 at all or that they can claim relief only after they finally succeed in the proceedings under Section 11. The question has been considered earlier by this court in Subramonian v.Sreelatha [1985 KLT 713]. It is too late in this day for the petitioner to raise that contention afresh before this court. 5. The only other contention raised is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. Rs.1,500/- per mensum as maintenance and Rs.2,500/- as litigation expenses are the amounts awarded. We are not persuaded to agree that the amount awarded is excessive. 6. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Needless to say, the amounts deposited in pursuance of the impugned orders shall straight away be released to the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays (and we find the said prayer to be justified) that the Family Court must make every endeavour to dispose of the O.P as expeditiously as W.P.(C)No.6330/09 4 possible. Needless further to say that no observation in this judgment or in the impugned orders shall weigh with the Family Court while finally disposing of the O.P. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARIRANI, JUDGE) jsr W.P.(C)No.6330/09 5 R.BASANT &C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009