IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 RPFC.NO. 190 OF 2009() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/03/2009 IN CRMP 654/08 IN MC.141/2008 OF FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- LIJU VARGHESE, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.T.V.KURIAN, ATTUMALICKAL HOUSE, CHINGOLI PO, KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALLEPPEY, RESIDING AT E11/72,2ND FLOOR HUNZ RANI,MALVIYA NAGAR,NEW DELHI,WORKING AS GROUP MANAGER, CORPORATE SERVICING NAUKI.COM INFO EDGE (INDIA)LTD,B-77,SECTOR 5,NOIDA-201301. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------------------------- 1. LEEBA GEORGE AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.P.V.GEORGE AND LAILA GEORGE,SANKARAMANGALAM, VAVAMANNIL MATTATHU, ERAVIPEROOR,THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA, NOW RESIDING AT 3F, SKYLINE ORFORD KALATHIPADY, KOTTAYAM. 2. LEVIN KURIAN VARGHESE, AGED 11 MONTHS (MONOR), S/O.LIJU VARGHESE, SANKARAMANGALAM, VAVAMANNIL MUTTATHU, ERAVIPEROOR, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA, NOW RESIDING AT 3F, SKYLINE ORFORD, KALATHIPPADY, KOTTAYAM. REPRESENTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT MOTHER. ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN SRI.BENNY CHERIAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(FC) NO.190 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Heard both sides. 2. Order passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Alappuzha on Crl.M.P. No.654 of 2008 in M.C. No.141 of 2008 directing petitioner to pay interim maintenance to the respondents, wife and son of petitioner at the rate of Rs.2,500/- each per month with effect from October, 2008 is under challenge in this revision. 3. Though learned counsel for petitioner has various contentions to claim that respondent No.1 is not entitled to get maintenance it is not necessary for me to go into those contentions at this stage since learned Judge of the Family Court is to pronounce verdict on those contentions after hearing both parties. What is now required for consideration is whether quantum of interim maintenance fixed by learned Judge is excessive. According to the petitioner, he is working in a private firm in New Delhi and is unable to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondents. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that petitioner has the means to pay such amount. 4. As per the case of first respondent she has completed B.Tech but is without any job. She is aged 25 years. Considering the R.P(FC) No.190 of 2009 -: 2 :- needs of respondent No.1 now aged 25 years including food, shelter, clothing, medicines, etc., I do not find reason at this stage to interfere with the interim maintenance of Rs.2,500/- awarded to respondent No.1. So far as respondent No.2 is concerned, she is aged one year. Interim maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month awarded to her can be modified as Rs.1,000/- per month also taking note of the interim maintenance awarded to respondent No.1 which I have not interfered. As per order of this Court petitioner has already deposited Rs.17,000/-. Respondents can withdraw that amount and adjust the same towards arrears of interim maintenance at the rate I have specified above. Rest of the amount in arrears payable at the same rate till 1.7.2009 shall be paid by petitioner within four months from this day, if necessary in installments. Petitioner shall continue to pay interim maintenance to the respondents as above stated from 1.7.2009 till the disposal of the case by the court below. Court below shall dispose of the case untrammelled by the quantum of maintenance fixed by that court or by me as per this order, after considering the contentions raised by the parties. Resultantly, this revision is allowed in part to the following extent: (i) Interim maintenance awarded to R.P(FC) No.190 of 2009 -: 3 :- respondent No.1 at the rate of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) per month is retained as such. (ii) Interim maintenance awarded to respondent No.2 is modified as Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) per month. (iii) Amount already in deposit can be withdrawn by respondent Nos.1 and 2and shall be adjusted towards the arrears payable at the rate above stated. (iv) Petitioner shall deposit the remaining arrears at the above said rate as on 1.7.2009 for payment to respondents within four months from this day, if necessary in installments. (v) Petitioner shall continue to pay interim maintenance to respondent Nos.1 and 2 at the aforesaid rate from 1.7.2009 onwards till disposal of the case by the Family Court. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv