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 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16275 of 2009(R) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31-1-2009 IN IA.856/2006 IN OP.613/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: --------------- CHENTHAMARAKSHAN, S/O.LATE T.P.MADHAVAN, PERIYAPADAM KALAM, ETHANUR AMSOM, CHITTUR TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA RESPONDENT: --------------- INDU, D/O.BHASKARAN, BHASKAR NILAYAM, KUNDUKKAD, KALIPPARA, KOTTEKKAD AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 16275 OF 2009 ============================ DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner husband had filed an application claiming divorce from the respondent, his wife. That petition has now been dismissed. During the pendency of that petition, the wife had filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance pending litigation and for litigation expenses. She claimed that she was unemployed. Admittedly, the petitioner is employed as a Conductor in the K.S.R.T.C. It is asserted that the petitioner has an income of Rs.7,000/- per mensem. Employment as conductor is admitted. No better material was made available to the court to show that the monthly income is not Rs.7,000/-. 2. The Family Court does not appear to have disposed of the application for interim maintenance earlier, but along with the WPC.16275/2009 -2- final order in the O.P. That petition was also disposed of vide Ext.P1 order. The petitioner is now obliged to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- per mensem from the date of the petition, i.e. 3-8-2005 and a further sum of Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by that order and has come before this Court with the request to invoke the jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with Ext.P1 order. 3. What is the grievance? Counsel contends that earlier an application for maintenance of the wife had been rejected in a proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that she had deserted him. Be that as it may, the situation has transformed qualitatively. The petitioner now seeks not restitution of conjugal rights but divorce. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the claim of the wife for maintenance under Section 24 of the Act appears to be absolutely justified. 4. There is a contention raised before us that the wife is employed . But significantly a plea to that effect or any material to support such a plausible plea is not seen raised or produced WPC.16275/2009 -3- before the court below. 5. Maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensem has been earlier ordered to the child. Under the impugned order only an amount of Rs.1,000/- has been awarded to the wife. 6. The petitioner's income is allegedly of Rs.7,000/- per month. The petitioner, who could have produced the documents to show contra, did not care to show the same. 7. In any view of the matter, we do not find any reason warranting interference with the impugned order by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The challenge against the impugned order in these circumstances fails. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally raised a grievance that because the petition was not disposed of earlier, the petitioner is now obliged to pay huge amount in one lump and prayed that breathing time may be granted to the petitioner to make payment of the amounts due under the impugned order. The respondent has already initiated steps for execution of Ext.P1 order. 9. We are not satisfied that any specific direction ought to WPC.16275/2009 -4- be issued. However, we must assume that the petitioner will be able to show bona fides by making an amount of Rs.20,000/- before the court below and seek further reasonable time to pay the balance amount. We have no reason to assume that in the given situation the Family Court would not consider such a request reasonably and with compassion. 10. With the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE WPC.16275/2009 -5-