A petitioner must provide financial evidence to contest family court maintenance orders effectively.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order of the learned Family Court, Neyyattinkara, on the ground that the said Court did not analyze his salary certificate properly, while mulcting him with the obligation to pay Rs.15,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondents.

2. Sri.Mohammed Al Rafi S. - learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that, in Ext.P6 order, the learned Family Court has taken his client’s salary to be Rs.50,375/-, but without discerning that this is the gross income, without deductions of Rs.12,185/-. He argued that, after such deductions are made, the net salary his client can take home is only Rs.38,000/-; out of which, he has to pay Rs.16,500/- as interest for Bank loans, while the balance has to be used to meet the medical expenses and such other of his old parents. He contended that, therefore, the learned Family Court ought not to have mulcted his client with more than Rs.4,500/- per month because, it is the only sum left after all the afore expenses.

3. Even though when we hear the learned counsel for the petitioner on the afore lines, the fact remains that the learned Family Court has, in Ext.P6, recorded unambiguously that the petitioner did not file any affidavit disclosing his assets and liabilities, as is statutorily required.

4. This stands without contest before us, though Sri.Mohammed Al Rafi says that his client is willing to file his affidavit. No doubt, in Ext.P3 objections, the petitioner appears to have mentioned about the bank loan of Rs.16,500/-, but in the absence of evidence or corroborating materials we cannot find fault with the learned Family Court in not having accepted it, particularly when the petitioner did not file his affidavit, as is admitted by his learned counsel before us.

5. Obviously, the petitioner cannot seek Ext.P6 to be set aside by us, or that we redo the calculation, since it is beyond our province; however, he certainly can move the learned Family Court with appropriate applications – including for review of the impugned order – on the strength of relevant and necessary details/documents.

With the afore clarification, we dismiss this Original Petition.

Sd/-