The court affirmed the Family Court's discretion in awarding interim maintenance, emphasizing timely trial in family matters.

JUDGMENT

The challenge in this original petition is to Ext.P5 order whereby the Family Court, Attingal granted interim maintenance to the respondents at the rate of Rs.3,500/- (Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred Only) each per month.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the learned Family Court Judge has not recorded any reason for granting interim maintenance to the respondents.

3. The relevant portion of Ext.P5 reads thus:-

“1) The petitioners in the MC filed this application seeking interim maintenance from the respondent.

2) The petitioners' case briefly stated is the following: The respondent is the husband of the 1^st petitioner. The 2^nd petitioner is their son. The respondent is working abroad and earns more than 80,000/- as monthly income. The respondent has been neglecting to provide maintenance to the petitioners from 12/05/2019. The 1^st petitioner is working as a staff nurse at Sree Gokulam Medical College, Venjaramoodu. According to her, she cannot afford the entire expenses of her and her son from her limited salary and they are depending on their relatives for their livelihood. Hence, she has claimed interim maintenance @15,000/- for herself and @ 10,000/- for the 2^nd petitioner. Hence she approached this court seeking the above relief.

3) The respondent filed written objection. According to him, the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. All the allegations of the 1^st petitioner against the respondent except the respondent specifically admitted in his objection is denied. According to him, he was working abroad with a nominal income and now he is in his native place. He is suffering physical issues and is unable to provide maintenance to the petitioners. According to him, the 1^st petitioner is having su income from her job to maintain herself and the 2^nd petitioner. Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

4) Heard both sides. At this stage of the case a deep root into the merits of the allegations levelled from either sides need not be looked into.

5) Considering the entire facts and circumstance of this case I find that interim maintenance @Rs.3,500/- for the 1^st petitioner and @ Rs.3,500/- for the 2^nd petitioner would be just and proper. Thus an amount of Rs.3,500/- for the 1^st petitioner and @Rs.3,500/- for the 2^nd petitioner to be paid by the respondent from the date of institution of the MC. The monthly interim maintenance to the minor will be extended only till he attains majority and till then the mother of the minor petitioner is permitted to receive amount for him. This CMP is allowed accordingly.”

4. I am of the considered view that, before awarding interim maintenance, the learned Family Court Judge had considered the relevant parameters. Therefore, the contention that the order impugned is not based on reasoning has no force. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, sought a direction to the Family Court to expedite the trial in the main case.

5. Having considered the submissions on either side, I feel that interference with Ext.P5 is not required. However, there will be a direction to the Family Court to expedite the trial in M.C No.375/2024.

The original petition is disposed of with a direction to dispose of M.C No.375/2024 on the file of the Family Court, Attingal within one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the Family Court is at liberty to seek further extension of time, if required.

Sd/-