IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26882 of 2010(R) -------------------------- OP.954/2009 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJEEV, S/O. VISWANATHAN, NAMBOODIRITHODI HOUSE, MAYANNUR VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, REP. BY HIS LAWFUL ATTORNEY HOLDER, VISWANATHAN. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SRI. RAJITH R. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- REKHA, D/O. SETHUMADHAVAN CHETTIAR, PANTHAPARAMBU HOUSE, MUDAPPALLUR P.O., ALATHUR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. © No. 26882 of 2010 R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT Basant J., The petitioner has come to this court with a petition to invoke the extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with the Ext.P5 order. O.P. No. 954 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioner herein for declaration of nullity of the marriage between him and the respondent herein. During the pendency of that application, the respondent herein/ wife filed an application for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. An amount of Rs.10,000/- per mensem as maintenance pendente lite and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses were claimed. The petitioner herein, it was contended, was a civil engineer working in Quatar and earning an income of Rs.60,000/- per mensem. The claimant wife, it was contended was unable to maintain herself. W.P. © No. 26882 of 2010 2 2. The claim was resisted with the plea that the husband, though employed abroad, is not at the moment having any employment that he is a qualified civil engineer employed abroad earlier was not disputed. So far as the claimant/wife is concerned, it was contended by the petitioner that the respondent is employed and is getting an amount of Rs.3,500/- per mensem. 3. Before the court below, no evidence as such appears to have been adduced. The court below, in these circumstances, passed the impugned order directing payment of only an amount of Rs.2,000/- per mensem as interim maintenance, pending disposal of the case and an amount of Rs.4,000/- as litigation expenses. 4. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. The learned counsel for the appellant / husband submits that the court below did not at all consider his plea that he is not now employed and that his wife is employed and is having an income. Though it is conceded that the appellant was having employment as a civil engineer abroad the contention is that he had lost his job. No material was produced in support of the said plea. On the later aspect; i.e., on the question whether the wife is employed and has W.P. © No. 26882 of 2010 3 any income of her own, no evidence whatsoever was produced. The assertion of the wife and the contra assertion of the husband alone were there. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an I.A. had already been filed in O.P. to call upon the employer of the respondent wife to produce documents relating to her employment and income. The court allowed that application but before the documents were produced, the court below proceeded to pass the impugned order. These in short are the grievances. 6. The petitioner herein is a qualified civil engineer. He was admittedly employed abroad as a civil engineer and the fact that he is temporarily not employed and is available in this Country is no reason for any court or prudent person to concede that he is not required to pay interim maintenance to his wife. Similarly as far as the alleged employment and income of the wife is concerned, no evidence whatsoever is placed before the court so far. The fact that in the O.P., an application has been filed to cause production of certain documents by the alleged employer of the respondent/wife is again no reason to indefinitely postpone decision on her claim for W.P. © No. 26882 of 2010 4 inteim maintenance. In the wake of the denial of the wife, the burden rests heavily on the husband to show that she was employed or was having an income. 7. We do not in these circumstances, find any merit in the challenge against the grant of maintenance/ litigation expenses or the quantum of amount awarded. We may however observe that if the petitioner succeeds in producing materials to show that his wife, the respondent herein is having any income and can live without any maintenance from her husband, it will be open to the petitioner to move the court below for appropriate modification/ cancellation of the order. Such a request will have to be considered by the Family Court on merits. 8. With the above observations, we dismiss the Writ Petition. R. BASANT, JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE dl/