High Court of KeralaOP(Crl.)/45/2015partly allowed

Sujith Nair v. Devika S.Nair

2015-02-20Honourable Mr. Justice P.Ubaid4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/1ST PHALGUNA, 1936 OP(Crl.).No. 45 of 2015 (Q) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

------------------------------------------------ SUJITH NAIR, AGED 43 YEARS S/O.LATE N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, SREENILAYAM CHANDRATHIL ROAD, EDAPPALLY.P.O, KOCHI-24.

BY ADVS.SRI.JOHNSON ABRAHAM SRI.S.GOPINATHAN SRI.NELSON ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

----------------------------------------------------

1. DEVIKA S.NAIR,, AGED 10 YEARS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, MALATHI.S PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 48/1706(1) NEAR BHAVANS SCHOOL, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI-682026.

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ R1 BY ADV. SMT.VINEETHA B.

R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. P. MAYA THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(Crl.).No. 45 of 2015 (Q) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1 (TRUE COPY OF THE M.C.282/2013 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM BY RESPONDENT) EXT.P2 (TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM PETITION M.P.587/2015 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM) EXT.P3 (TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM) EXT.P4 (TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN M.P.587/2013 IN M.C.282/2013 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM).

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE sab

P.UBAID, J.

------------------------- O.P (Crl.)No.45 of 2015 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2015.

J U D G M E N T

An order of interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C in favour of the respondent herein from the Family Court, Ernakulam in M.P No. 587 of 2013 in M.C No.282 of 2013 is under challenge in this petition brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Of course, revision is not possible against such an order. That is why, probably, the petitioner has come under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I heard both sides and I also saw the child produced in open court. I find that she has some problems physically, and that she requires a huge amount every month for her educational expenses, and also physiotherapy treatment. What is granted by the court is 15,000/- per month. On ₹ hearing both sides and on a perusal of the materials I find that the petitioner has sufficient income, and it is true that the mother is also employed. That also can be considered in this proceeding for interim maintenance, though it will not have much force when it comes to the final decision. Anyway on hearing both sides I find that there is no much scope for

O.P (Crl.)No.45 of 2015 interference. However in the interest of justice, on a consideration of the representations made from both sides, I find that the impugned order can be slightly modified subject to final decision in the main proceeding. In the present circumstances, I find that 12,000/- will reasonably meet the ₹ expenses of the child. Anyway, let final decision be taken by the family Court in the main proceeding.

In the result, this petition is allowed in part. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam will stand modified to the effect that the amount payable by the petitioner herein to the child as interim maintenance shall be 12,000/- per month from the date of ₹ claim, of course subject to final decision by the trial court in the main proceeding.

P.UBAID, JUDGE sab