A parent's obligation to provide for their child's maintenance is essential, regardless of custody disputes.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of December, 2022 This original petition has been filed under Article

227 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner herein is the respondent in M.P.No.728/2019 in M.C.No.144/2019 on the file of the Family Court, Irinjalakuda. The respondent is the original petitioner in the above matter. The petitioner impugns order dated 22.09.2022 whereby the Family Court granted interim maintenance to the respondent (minor son) at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on admission.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that, the wife got remarried and she left the company of the petitioner and also the wife denied visitorial right in relation to the minor, who claimed maintenance. Therefore, the order impugned is unsustainable and the same liable to be interfered. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pressed for a short stay in executing the order.

4. I have perused the order impugned. The same emenated in petition filed by the minor son of the petitioner, aged 10 years vide M.P.No.728/2019 in M.C.No.144/2019 through his mother, represented by the power of attorney holder. It was contented before the Family Court that, the minor had no means of income to maintain himself and he has been depending on his mother. The respondent/ petitioner herein is a person working at IDBI Bank, Vyttila Branch and has been getting a salary of Rs.75,000/- per month.

5. The petitioner herein filed an objection, not specifically denying his job that he has been maintaining with IDBI Bank, as contented. The one and only objection raised is that, the custody of the minor was not given to him and therefore, he would not pay maintenance.

6. In the impugned order itself, there is reference as to order in GOP 1013/2014 regarding custody of the minor and against which the petitioner herein filed an appeal, which is also pending before this Court. Therefore, the petitioner can address his grievances in this regard, before the Bench dealing with the appeal. As things stands now, entitlement of maintenance by the minor is established prima facie. The petitioner/respondent in MC not specifically denied his employment in IDBI Bank and the income as asserted, and his objection is confined to the denial of visitorial right, which is the subject matter in GOP 1013/2014. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the interim order, thereby the Family Court granted a meagre amount of Rs.10,000/- to minor aged 10 years, for his survival.

Accordingly, this original petition is meritless and is dismissed, with direction to the revision petitioner to clear the entire arrears of maintenance from the date of the petition till this date, within a period of six weeks from today.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

SK

APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 652/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF MC 144/2019 IN FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA DATED 29/10/2022 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MP NO.728/2019 IN MC

144/2019,FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION IN MC NO 144/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA DATED 23/8/2022 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION IN MP NO 728/2019 IN MC NO 144/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.09.2022 OF THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT AT IRINJALAKKUDA IN MP NO. 728/2019 IN MC NO. 144/2019 DATED

22/09/2022 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL