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 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 722 of 2009(C) ---------------------------- OP.522/2006 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT : RESPONDENT --------------- HAREENDRAN PILLAI, S/O. NARAYAN PILLAI, CHERIYALOLEZHATHU VEEDU, NEELAMPEROR VILLAGE, KUTTANADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ RESPONDENT:PETITIONER --------------- PUSHPALATHA, D/O. A.K. SIVAN PILLAI, SIVALAYAM, THAMALAKKAL, KUMARAPURAM, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ Mat.Appeal No.722 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/husband aggrieved by the direction issued to him under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act to pay past and future maintenance to the respondent, his wife @ Rs.5,000/- per mensem along with Rs.10,000/- as cost. 2. The marital tie is admitted. That the parties are residing separately is not disputed. The appellant/husband is employed abroad and it is accepted and admitted that he does not want to offer to take her to his place of employment abroad. The liability for payment of maintenance is not disputed. The short dispute then is only about the quantum of maintenance to be paid. The court below on the materials available directed payment of Rs.5,000/- per mensem. Before the court below there was only the oral evidence of PW1 and no contra evidence adduced at all. It is submitted that earlier an ex parte decree was passed. The same was set aside and it is thereafter that the impugned order was passed. Mat.Appeal No.722 of 2009 2 3. We have heard both counsel. The short question to be decided is whether the direction for payment of an amount of Rs.5,000- is excessive. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are certain unnecessary findings in the impugned order which may be vacated so that they shall not stand against the appellant in other proceedings pending. The learned counsel for the respondent readily agrees to that suggestion. All findings adverse to the respondent on other questions are vacated as agreed. 4. The challenge against the quantum of his liability to pay maintenance to the wife, (which is not disputed and about which there is only dispute regarding quantum payable) alone is taken into consideration in this appeal. The claim was for an amount of Rs.5,000/- and the claim was allowed in full. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that such a finding entered solely on the basis of the alleged status of the appellant/husband is not justified. The appellant/husband is employed abroad. The wife is living in India. In a connected matter which was disposed of by us though there was an earlier offer that the wife can be brought to the appellant's place of employment abroad, that offer did not work out and the parties Mat.Appeal No.722 of 2009 3 agree that they shall reside separately. We are satisfied that the court below has committed no error warranting invocation of the appellate jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act in having awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- as monthly maintenance for the respondent/wife. The husband is well employed abroad and there is no dispute on that aspect. In any view of the matter the materials available amply justify the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid. 5. This Appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed and the impugned order is upheld. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that execution petition has been filed and the property of the appellant is attached. Breathing time may be given to make the payment and the property may not be sold in execution immediately. The learned counsel for the respondent after discussions at the Bar is not averse to the idea of granting further time for the appellant to make payment of the amount found due under the impugned order. But reasonable directions may be issued for expeditious liquidation of the entire arrears payable, submits the learned counsel for the respondent. Mat.Appeal No.722 of 2009 4 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it appropriate to direct the execution court not to proceed with the sale of the property attached for a period of 4 months on condition that the appellant deposits one fourth of the amount due within a period of 15 days from this date. The next one fourth of the amount due within a further period of 30 days; the next one fourth within a further period of 30 days and the entire balance amount due till that day under the impugned order within a period of 4 months from this date. 5. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the appellant. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/-