The order under challenge is impugned Ext.P2 dated 15.06.2019

rendered by the Family Court, Palakkad on CMP No.468/2018 in

M.C.No.170/2018, whereby the said court has ordered the petitioner herein

(the respondent therein) should pay interim maintenance at the rate of

Rs.4,500/- per month to the respondent herein (the revision petitioner

therein), 15 year old minor daughter.

2.

Heard Sri.Johnson Varikkappallil, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner and Sri.Rajesh Sivaramankutty, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent herein.

3.

The main complaint voiced by the petitioner herein is to the

effect that for effectuating the proper consideration of CMP No. 468/2018

in the matter of claimed interim maintenance, the petitioner has made the

requisite application under Sec.91 of the Cr.P.C for calling for the

documents from the School, where the mother of the respondent herein is

employed and also for eliciting certain other details. The contention of the

petitioner is that the mother of the respondent herein is working as a

primary teacher in the CBSE school run under the management of the

3

Bharatiya Vidya Bhavans and that Ext.P1 website details would show that

the mother of the respondent herein (wife of the petitioner herein) is

having a basic pay of Rs.33,900 and 45% of dearness allowance and a

further amount of Rs.840/- and PF deduction for the contribution at the

rate of 12% of the basic pay and that the petitioner has thus reliable

information that the mother of the respondent herein is having a minimum

income of at least Rs.43,000/- per month. The petitioner would contend

that since the mother of the child is also gainfully employed and is getting a

handsome salary, both the parents of the child are equally liable to

maintain the child and that in such a situation, it is not the unilateral

responsibility of one of the parents alone. Further, the petitioner would

point out that his income is very limited and that for purchasing the

domestic peace, he has given the substantial portion of his property in

favour of his wife (the mother of the child) and that is the reason why no

claim for maintenance was made earlier.

4.

The abovesaid pleas are opposed by the learned counsel

appearing for the respondents herein. Sri.Rajesh Sivaramankutty, learned

counsel appearing for the respondents has strongly denied the abovesaid

contentions of the petitioner, more particularly, the allegation that the

petitioner had earlier transferred his assets in favour of his wife etc. and

that till date, the petitioner has not spared even a single pie on the

maintenance of the respondents herein and further that the elder child is

4

look after solely out of the income of the mother etc.

5.

After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts

and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the

Family court should have ascertained the income and salary details of the

mother of the child as well before passing an order in the nature of Ext.P1

in the matter of interim maintenance. It is all the more so, as it is now

stated that the requisite application for calling for the documents and

details from the employer of the mother of the child is already pending

before the Family Court as CMP No.664/2019. In that view of the matter,

without getting into the merits of the matter in any manner, this Court is of

the considered view that the matter requires a reconsideration and hence it

warrants a remit. For effectuating such a remit, the impugned Ext. P2 order

will stand set aside and the matter in CMP No.468/2018 will stand

remitted to the Family Court concerned, Palakkad for consideration afresh

along with the plea made by the petitioner in CMP No.664/2019. To avoid

further delay, it is ordered that the mother of the child will file an affidavit

before the Family Court about the exact salary details drawn by her as

regards her basic pay, dearness allowance etc. and deductions if any and

the to