A daughter petitioned under Article 227 to quash her mother's interim maintenance order fixing Rs. 1,000/month. The High Court dismissed the petition as an abuse of process due to the one-year filing delay despite the petitioner's contentions regarding the mother's pension and income.
The original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN &
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/7TH ASHADHA 1934
OP (FC).No. 2043 of 2012 (R)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP.NO.838 OF 2011 IN MC.NO.93OF 2011 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR
PETITIONER:
JUBILEE, AGED 42 YEARS W/O.CHANDRA MOHANAN, KUNNATHU HOUSE, MANALUR DESOM MANALUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
RESPONDENT:
GOURI, W/O.LATE UNNIKRISHNAN, KARIPADATH PAYANIYIL HOUSE ENGANDIYOOR DESOM, ENGANDIYOOR P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680 615.
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.T.SANKARAN & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
O.P.(F.C.) NO.2043 OF 2012
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2012
JUDGMENT
K.T.Sankaran, J.
Petitioner is the daughter of the respondent. The respondent is aged 70 years. She is a widow. She filed M.C.No.93 of 2011 before the Family Court, Thrissur against the petitioner herein claiming maintenance at the rate of 5,000/- per month. The respondent also filed C.M.P.No.838 of 2011 before the Family Court claiming interim maintenance. That application was allowed by the order dated 25.6.2011, directing the petitioner/daughter to pay 1,000/- per month to the respondent/mother. The order dated 25.6.2011 is under challenge in this Original Petition (FC) filed only on 27.6.2012, one year and two days after the passing of the order by the Family Court.
O.P.(F.C.) NO.2043 OF 2012
:: 2 ::
sale and that she earns 30,000/- per month as income. Including the income from agricultural operations, the total monthly income of the petitioner/daughter is 35,000/- per month, according to the respondent/mother.
500/- per month. The court below held that the fact that the mother did not file any petition against the other two daughters is not a ground to deny maintenance or interim maintenance to her from the petitioner/daughter. A very low amount of 1,000/- per month was fixed as interim maintenance. The daughter is not prepared to pay even that meager amount to her own mother.O.P.(F.C.) NO.2043 OF 2012
:: 3 ::
Registry will communicate a copy of this judgment to the Family
Court.
(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge
ahz/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should invoke its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with the Family Court's maintenance order.
Whether a delay of over a year in filing the original petition warrants the exercise of Article 227 jurisdiction.
JUBILEE
GOURI
K.T. SANKARAN
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court