Disposed

K. Krishnakumar v. Sulabhakumari

Kerala HC7 Nov 2012OP (FC)/3714/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala reviewed an original petition challenging an interim maintenance order under Article 227. While declining to interfere with the interim order, the Court directed the Family Court to try the main maintenance case on its merits based on adduced evidence.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Family Court to enquire and take a final decision in the main maintenance case based on evidence adduced therein.

K. Krishnakumar Vs Sulabhakumari — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

¶4

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/16TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶7

OP (FC).No. 3714 of 2012 (R)

¶8

IA.NO.125/2012 IN MC.51/2012 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

K. KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O.KRISHNA KURUP, AGED 46 YEARS MECHANICAL ENGINEER, PALLITHOTTAM CHITHARAL ARUMANA P.O. KANYAKUMAR DIST. TAMIL NADU

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR SRI.K.MANIKANTAN NAIR

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

SULABHAKUMARI, W/O. KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS NO.256, MAYOORI BHAVAN, ERICHALLOOR

¶14

PLAMOOTTUKADA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 128.

¶15

BABY OF SULABHAKUMARI,

¶16

-DO -DO- REPRESENTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶17

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

OP (FC).No. 3714 of 2012 (R)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT-P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE M.C.NO.51/12 DATED 27-2-12 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS

¶22

EXHIBIT-P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE IA.NO.125/12 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS

¶23

EXHIBIT-P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 12-7-12 FILED BY PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE DATED 28-2-12 ISSUED TO PETITIONER.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE AWZARD IN WPC.NO.15691/06 DATED 19-3-07

¶25

EXHIBIT-P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 13-7-12 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS

¶26

EXHIBIT-P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24-7-12 IN I.A.NO.125/12 IN M.C.NO.51/12.

¶27

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶28

O. P. (FC) No.3714 of 2012

¶29

Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2012

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

¶32

Under challenge in this Original Petition filed by the husband under Article 227 of the constitution is Ext.P7 order passed by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram in I.A.125/12. The above I.A was one for interim maintenance

¶33

filed by the respondents (wife and son of the petitioner). Ext.P2 is copy of I.A.125/12. Ext.P2 shows that interim maintenance was claimed at the rate of ` 10,000/- each which is the rate of maintenance claimed in Ext.P1 MC itself.

¶34

The main ground raised by the petitioner is that the rate of ` 7,500/- which is presently awarded is excessive. The learned Family Court under the impugned order has found that the total income of the petitioner will be around

¶35

O. P. (FC) No.3714 of 2012

¶36

-2-

¶37

45,000/- and in that view of the matter directed the petitioner to pay a total amount of 15,000/- (approximately

¶38

one third of his total income) as maintenance to his wife and child.

¶39

Even though Sri.Sreekanth S. Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner addressed very persuasive submissions before us having reminded ourselves of the well delineated contours of this Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 we are not inclined to interfere with Ext.P7. At the same time, we feel that this is a case where MC should be tried and disposed of by the Family Court at the earliest. We direct the Presiding Officer of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to enquire into and take a final decision in M.C.51/12. Decision in the MC shall be taken on the basis of the evidence which comes on record in the MC. The court shall not be unduly influenced by Ext.P7 or our

¶40

O. P. (FC) No.3714 of 2012

¶41

-3-

¶42

present judgment confirming Ext.P7. The rate of maintenance to be awarded shall be determined based

¶43

solely on the evidence which the parties adduce in the MC.

¶44

Sd/PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶45

Sd/BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE

¶46

kns/-

¶47

//TRUE COPY//

¶48

P.A. TO JUDGE

K. Krishnakumar v. Sulabhakumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Krishnakumar v. Sulabhakumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suthin S Vs the Director General of Police

V.Txavier Vs State of Kerala

S.B.Sunil Kumar Vs B.Raji

B.Prasannadas Vs Jayasree

Muhammed Shafi Vs Bushra

Sheeja Vs State of Kerala