IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 25TH MAGHA 1932 OP (FC).No. 621 of 2011(R) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/11/2010 IN MP.1709/2010 IN MC.336/2010 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ BINEESH,S/O.EEYAKUNNATH BALAN, THALIKKOD DESOM,PANANCHERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SAINO,D/O.ITTIYADAN BALAN, VELLANIKKARA VILLAGE, DESOM,THRISSUR TALUK. 2. MINOR SACHIN,REP.BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN, IST RESPONDENT, DO. DO. 680 654. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. (F.C.) No. 621 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of February 2011 JUDGMENT Joseph J., The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order, which is passed in a petition for seeking interim maintenance from the petitioner. The respondents are the wife and child of the petitioner. The Family Court has granted interim maintenance at Rs.2,000/- per month to the first respondent and Rs.750/- to the second respondent as interim maintenance. 2. The petitioner filed Ext.P1 objection to the petition filed by the respondents. The petitioner would say that he was not given an opportunity to prove his case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Supervisor in a construction Company. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the O.P. (F.C.) No. 621 of 2011 : 2 : Family Court. We further direct the Family Court to dispose of the M.C. filed by the respondents against the petitioner at the earliest, at any rate, within four months from the production of a copy of this judgment. 4. If the maintenance amount ordered by the Family Court is lesser than the amount ordered in Ext.P2, the Family Court must give credit for the excess payment that would be made by the petitioner in pursuance of Ext.P2 order. K.M. JOSEPH, (JUDGE) M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/