An appellate court will not interfere with an interim maintenance order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India if the court below properly exercised its discretion and the amounts awarded are reasonable, provided minor procedural defects in disclosure statements do not prejudice the underlying entitlement.

J U D G M E N T

The order dated 12.08.2025 of the Family Court, Adoor, directing the petitioner herein to pay interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to his wife and Rs.6,000/- per month to his three-year-old daughter, is under challenge in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner’s wife and child are now remaining under the care and protection of the parents of the petitioner’s wife, pursuant to the domestic issues with the petitioner. Contending that she is jobless and unable to maintain herself and her daughter, the petitioner’s wife had approached the Family Court seeking maintenance from him. According to her, the petitioner is a B.Tech graduate earning a salary of Rs.1,80,000/- per month from his employment in a reputed company in Dubai.

3. For and on behalf of the petitioner, his counsel has filed an objection against the interim maintenance application, contending that the petitioner’s wife is of quarrelsome nature and she herself had deserted the petitioner. It is further contended in the aforesaid objection that the petitioner’s wife and her daughter are not entitled to any interim maintenance.

4. After considering the aforesaid contentions of the parties and hearing both sides, the learned Judge of the Family Court, Adoor, passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- & Rs. 6,000/-, respectively, to his wife and daughter with effect from the date of petition. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid order of the Family Court is liable to be set aside in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

6. A reading of the impugned order of the Family Court would reveal that the said court arrived at the finding of entitlement of the petitioners in that M.C. to have interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- & Rs.6,000/- respectively, after considering the disclosure statements filed by the parties and all other relevant facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the disclosure statement filed by the wife of the petitioner was incomplete, and that many of the columns in the said statement are left blank. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in the disclosure statement of the wife of the petitioner, she had stated that she is self-employed with several qualifications in the Engineering field. Thus, it is contended that the court below went wrong in acting upon the aforesaid disclosure affidavit which was incomplete and erroneous. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the wife of the petitioner did not furnish her bank statements before the court below. Thus, it is contended that the court below arrived at the finding about the entitlement of interim maintenance to the wife and child of the petitioner without any basis.

7. Ext P6 is the copy of the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by the petitioner’s wife before the court below. It is true that certain columns of that printed form are filled with the entry NA (Not Applicable) and certain columns are left with a dash mark. However, it is pertinent to note that all the relevant columns in support of the prayer for interim maintenance are seen filled up. It is true that in the first column under the head ‘I,’ where the deponent had to state about the nature of business, profession, vocation etc., of self-employed claimants, she had mistakenly mentioned the qualifications of her husband. The