The court affirmed the reasonableness of interim maintenance orders reflecting the petitioner's means and respondents' needs.

J U D G M E N T

This original petition has been filed challenging Ext.P7 interim order of maintenance.

2. The petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and the father of the second respondent. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed M.C. No.436/2023 against the petitioner before the Family Court, Neyyattinkara, claiming maintenance. The Family Court granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month to the first respondent and Rs.3,000/- per month to the second respondent with effect from the date of the petition, that is, 17.10.2018. Though the order was passed on 04.07.2024, this original petition has been filed after a period of more than 18 months, that too, after filing of the execution petition.

3. The petitioner is admittedly employed in K.S.E.B. and is drawing substantial salary. Though the petitioner has taken up a contention that the first respondent is employed, there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the same. Considering the requirements of respondents 1 and 2 and the means of the petitioner, the interim monthly maintenance granted by the Family Court appears to be absolutely reasonable. Hence, I see no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.

Accordingly, this original petition is dismissed.