IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT q & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15160 of 2010(R) -------------------------- OP.415/2008 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: M.P. AKASH RADHAKRISHNAN S/O.M.R. PADMANABHAN, NO.5 A RANGAPPAGOUNNDAR LAY OUT SELVAPURAM, COIMBATORE 641 026. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. G. SIMITHA, D/O. N. GOVINDARAJAN, PRASANTHI, VASUDEVANAGAR, ROBINSON ROAD PALAKKAD 678 001. 2. M.S. VIKRAM 9MINOR) S/O. G. SIMITHHA, PRASANTHI VASUDEVANAGAR, ROBINSON ROAD PALAKKAD 678 001. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(CIVIL)NO. 15160 OF 2010 ============================ DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MAY 2010 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and father of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is the minor child. The wife has filed an application for divorce. That matter is pending before the Family Court from 2008. The wife filed an application for litigation expenses and maintenance pendente lite. She claimed that she is impecunious and has no income of her own. Her husband, the petitioner is employed abroad and earns an income of Rs.50,000/- per mensem, she asserted. The application was resisted. Husband denied the allegations about his means and the want of means on the part of the claimant- wife. No evidence was produced before the court below. On the materials available in the case, the court below proceeded to pass the impugned interim order directing payment of an amount of Rs.7500/- as litigation expenses and an amount of w.p.(c)no. 15160/2010 2 Rs.6,000/- per mensem as maintenance. 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. He prays that the extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court may be invoked to interfere with the impugned order. 3. What is his grievance? According to him, the amount of Rs.6,000/- awarded as monthly maintenance is excessive and beyond his means. That he was employed abroad is admitted. He has, of course, a case that he left his employment abroad and has come to India. Not a scintilla of material placed before the court below to substantiate this assertion. The wife is admittedly in India. She asserted that she has no employment. Husband asserted that she has employment and income. 4. Absolutely no materials were placed before court in support of the assertions of the petitioner. The order passed by the court below, in these circumstances, according to us, is absolutely reasonable and at any rate does not warrant interference invoking the extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This, we are satisfied, is not a fit case where this Court should invoke its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to w.p.(c)no. 15160/2010 3 interfere with the impugned order. The challenge raised, therefore fails. This writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limine. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that there may be a direction for expeditious disposal of the O.P.filed in 2008. We need only mention that the learned Judge of the Family Court must make every endeavour to dispose of O.P.NO.415/2008 as expeditiously as possible. 6. In the circumstances of the case, this writ petition is dismissed with the above directions. R. BASANT, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. w.p.(c)no. 15160/2010 4