Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 43980
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G. Girish, J
Abraham Thomas Puthooran – Appellant
Versus
Manju Abraham – Respondent
OP(CRL.) NO. 228 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.S. Unnikrishnan, Aaditya Nair, M. Ardra Krishnan, Reshma K., Smrithi Krishna, Aysha Abraham
For the Respondents: R. Leela, Arjun Gopal P., Aishwarya M. S., Jahnavi J. Nair, S. Sreekumar (SR.)
A court's power to alter interim maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C. based on a change in circumstances cannot be restricted by an erroneous clerical phrase like 'after trial' in a previous order, as legislative mandates for modification during pendency must prevail.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged orders of the Family Court regarding the enforcement of interim maintenance and the refusal to modify the maintenance amount. The petitioner had sought alteration under Section 127 Cr.P.C. on grounds of the spouse's income and personal financial hardships, but the Family Court refused, citing a High Court order that directed maintenance to be paid 'until further orders are passed by the Family Court after trial'. The core issue was whether the phrase 'after trial' in a High Court order precludes the Family Court from altering interim maintenance during the pendency of proceedings. The court reasoned that Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. expressly allows for the alteration of interim maintenance upon proof of change in circumstances, and the inclusion of 'after trial' was an error or oversight that cannot override legislative mandates. In the result, the original petition is disposed of as follows: i) Exts.P9 and P14 orders dated 25.01.2019 and 24.02.2026 respectively of the Family Court, Ernakulam, are hereby set aside. ii) The Court below is directed to afford opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of his claim for modification of interim maintenance, and to decide Ext.P7 petition (M.P No.84/2019) afresh, in accordance with law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of interim maintenance orders and subsequent enforcement through distress warrants. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. the statutory power to alter interim maintenance under section 127 cr.p.c. supersedes clerical errors in court orders. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. necessity of re-evaluating maintenance claims based on evidence and adherence to the one-year limitation period for recovery. (Para 8 , 9) |
J U D G M E N T
The orders passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam for the enforcement of the interim maintenance order passed in this case, are under challenge in this original petition filed by the respondent in M.C No.119/2016.
2. As per Ext.P5 interim order dated 05.07.2016, the Family Court directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the petitioners in that M.C, who are his wife and daughter, as monthly maintenance. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in O.P(Crl) No.443/2016. As per order dated 31.08.2016, this Court reduced the quantum of interim maintenance amount to Rs.25,000/- and directed the petitioner to pay the interim maintenance at the aforesaid rate to his wife and daughter, until further orders are passed by the Family Court after trial. Thereafter, the petitioner filed M.P No.84/2019 under Section 127 Cr.P.C to alter the maintenance amount stating the reason that his wife is earning a monthly salary of Rs.70,000/- per month from his employment as Assistant Manager (Finance) in Aster Medicity, Cheranalloor, Ernakulam, and that the other financial factors like the deterioration in his practice as a lawyer and the medical emergencies of his father and mother, which he had to attend, warranted a modification of the interim maintenance order. The aforesaid petition was dismissed by the Family Court vide Ext.P9 order dated 25.01.2019 stating the reason that this Court has directed in Ext.P6 order that the petitioner shall continue to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month until further orders are passed by the Family Court after trial, and hence no modification in the interim maintenance is possible. Thereafter, the respondents (petitioners in the M.C) filed Ext.P10 petition (M.P No.100/2020) before the Family Court for realisation of an amount of Rs.4,80,000/- from the petitioner which stood due as arrears of interim maintenance. Towards the enforcement of the aforesaid claim, the Family Court issued distress warrant against the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner filed M.P No.1/2026 to reconsider the order of distress warrant, and M.P No.2/2026 to keep the distress warrant in abeyance. The Family Court dismissed both the above petitions by Ext.P14 common order dated 24.02.2026. It is the aforesaid common order which is under challenge in this original petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. In Ext.P14 common order, the Family Court observed that the reason stated by the petitioner for recalling the distress warrant cannot be looked into, in view of the direction of this Court in Ext.P6 order that the petitioner shall pay and continue to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.25,000/- until further orders are passed by the Family Court after trial. The Family Court further observed that the contentions raised by the petitioner about the employment of his wife and the attainment of age of majority of his daughter etc, were earlier considered by the Family Court in Ext.P7 petition, and disallowed vide Ext.P9 order dated 25.01.2019. Thus, the sum and substance of Ext.P14 order of the Family Court is that the petitioner is having no option other than continuing payment of interim maintenance @ Rs.25,000/- to the respondents until the conclusion of the trial leading to another order of the Family Court. According to the Court below, neither the change of circumstances nor any other contingency, could enable the petitioner to seek a modification of the payment of interim main
