IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13095 of 2009(R) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/07/2008 IN IA. 3514 /2007 IN OP.742/2006 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- LAKSHMANAN,S/O.THANKAYYAN NADAR, RESIDING AT KARAKKADU PUTHEN VEEDU, DHANUVACHAPURAM,KOLLAYIL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENT: --------------- NIRMALA,D/O.NJANADEEPAM, RESIDING AT KARAKKADU PUTHEN VEEDU,DHANUVACHAPURAM, KOLLAYIL VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 13095 OF 2009 ============================ DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order directing payment of interim maintenance to the respondent/wife by the petitioner/husband at the rate of Rs.1000/- per mensem. 2. The marriage is admitted. Separate residence is admitted. That after separate residence, maintenance is not being paid is also not seriously disputed. The petitioner is admittedly earning an income of Rs.10,942/- per mensem. The learned Judge of the Family Court directed payment of only an amount of Rs.1000/- per mensem pending disposal of the original petition for maintenance. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? First of all it is contended that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. The submission of the learned counsel show that the total amount of monthly income exceeds Rs.10,000/-. By no stretch of imagination can it be held that grant of WPC.13095/2009 -2- Rs.1000/- per mensem as interim maintenance is excessive. Secondly it is contended that the wife has properties. But there is not a scintilla of evidence placed before the court to show that the wife has any property and is deriving any income therefrom. This contention also must hence fall to the ground. Thirdly it is contended that the petitioner has to spend a huge amount of money for the treatment of his mother. Details are not forthcoming. Even assuming that the petitioner as a dutiful son is bearing the expenses for the treatment of his mother, his duty to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per mensem to his wife cannot be obliterated or reduced on account of his responsibility to pay unspecified amounts for the treatment of his mother. There is nothing to show the quantum of money required for the treatment of the mother. It is then contended that the carry home salary of the petitioner is only Rs.3700/-. Manipulations can be made in the total salary and carry home salary can be reduced. Even assuming that the carry home salary is only Rs.3700/-, the direction to pay at the rate of Rs.1000/- per mensem to the wife is perfectly reasonable, fair and just. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. This writ petition does not in these circumstances deserve admission. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally prays that there WPC.13095/2009 -3- may be a direction for expeditious disposal of O.P.No.742/2006. Needless to say, every endeavour must be made by the Family Court to dispose of O.P.No.742/2006 as expeditiously as possible. We are not persuaded to agree any time limit should be fixed . Expeditious disposal must certainly be attempted. 5. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. R. BASANT, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks.