Palakkad Family Court's Interim Maintenance Order Upheld by Kerala High Court

Palakkad Family Court's Interim Maintenance Order Upheld by Kerala High Court

Background:

A husband challenged the interim maintenance order issued by the Family Court, Palakkad, directing him to pay Rs. 4,500/- per month to his wife and Rs. 1,500/- per month to his minor child from the date of the petition till the disposal of the maintenance case.

Legal Question:

Whether the Family Court's order granting interim maintenance was justified and reasonable.

Arguments Presented:

• The petitioner argued that there was no material before the court to arrive at the quantum directed to be paid and that the wife was earning more than Rs. 25,000/- as salary, making the amount directed exorbitant for him, a daily wage earner.

• The respondent-wife did not present any arguments in the High Court.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning:

• The High Court noted that the Family Court had considered the absence of any material to show the employment of the respondent-wife and that the amount imposed was very meager.

• The court further observed that the purpose of granting interim maintenance is to help the destitute wife and minor children, and that interference with such orders without cause would defeat the purpose of the statute.

• The High Court held that unless the impugned order granting interim maintenance is perverse or the amount directed to be paid is exorbitant, the Court should seldom interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Decision:

The Kerala High Court dismissed the challenge to the Family Court's interim maintenance order, finding no perversity or exorbitance in the amount directed to be paid. However, the court granted the petitioner a period of 30 days to deposit the entire arrears as on date, before coercive steps could be initiated against him.

Significance:

The High Court's decision upholds the importance of interim maintenance in providing support to destitute wives and minor children during matrimonial disputes. It also emphasizes the need for judicial restraint in interfering with such orders, unless they are perverse or unreasonable.