Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 9442
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J
VISMAYA VINAYAKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
OP(CRL.) NO. 689 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.BHANU THILAK, SHRI.S.R.PRASANTH, SHRI.VISHNU.R, SMT.AISWARYA KRISHNAN, SMT.POOJA N.S.
For the Respondents: SHRI.LAVARAJ M.G., SHRI.KALAHARI CHANDRA BABU S.
The court mandates reconsideration of interim maintenance applications, emphasizing the need for due consideration of the parties' financial situations.
Headnote:The judgment addresses the petitioner's challenge to the Family Court's order regarding interim maintenance. The petition sought Rs. 20,000/- but was granted only Rs. 4,000/-. The court found that the Family Court did not duly consider the submissions of both parties. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the Family Court to reassess the application and dispose of it expeditiously. The court emphasized timely resolution of maintenance applications and consideration of assets and obligations of the parties.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to interim maintenance order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court remarks over insufficient consideration of submissions. (Para 4) |
| 3. order of reassessment and expediency. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
The challenge in this Original Petition is to Ext.P4 order whereby the learned Family Court Judge directed respondent No.2 to pay Rs.4000/- as interim maintenance.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had sought interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month. However, the learned Judge did not consider the averments contained in the petition seeking interim maintenance. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though both parties submitted statements disclosing their assets and liabilities, the learned Family Court Judge did not take the same into consideration.
4. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the amount awarded is reasonable.
5. The impugned order reads thus:-
“Heard. In view of the submission of both parties at the box Rs.4000/- as fixed as interim maintenance from 01.03.2025.”
6. It appears that the learned Family Court Judge has not considered the rival contentions raised by the parties. Therefore, the order dated 24.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.351/2024 in M.C.No.170/2024 on the file of the Family Court, Alappuzha (Ext.P4) stands set aside. The learned Family Court, Alappuzha, is directed to reconsider the application seeking interim maintenance. The Family Court, Alappuzha, is further directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the matter, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The application seeking interim maintenance shall be considered and disposed of within fifteen days from this day.
The Original Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
