Kiran T.A. v. Nayana A.S. and Zia, OP(Crl.) No. 402 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Badharudeen
Judgment Date: 2022-09-23
Court Decision / Holding: O.P.(Crl.) No.402 of 2022 is dismissed; the interim maintenance order of Rs.6,000 for the wife and Rs.5,000 for the child stands, and the Family Court is instructed to decide the final quantum of maintenance on merits based on evidence, untrammeled by observations in this judgment.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed; interim maintenance upheld; Family Court to determine final quantum on merits.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Kiran T.A.

Respondents

Nayana A.S.
Zia

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Arun Sebastian
• Adv. M. Sreelakshmi

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. R. Pushpangathan Pillai

Case Synopsis & Summary

This original criminal petition challenges a Family Court interim maintenance order in MP No.20 of 2021 in MC No.269 of 2020, pending before the Family Court Ernakulam. The petition is filed by the husband (review petitioner) challenging the order dated 06.08.2021 granting maintenance to the wife at Rs.6,000 and to the minor child at Rs.5,000 per month, and the subsequent review order dated 24.05.2022 (MP No.728/2021). The wife (first petitioner) and her minor child seek maintenance arguing financial needs and lack of stable income; the husband contends that the wife has some income, deserted the matrimonial home, and that Rs.11,000 total maintenance is excessive in view of his own earnings (Rs.30,000 per month, reduced to Rs.28,000 during COVID-19). The petitioner cites Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, advocating adherence to procedural norms requiring assets and liabilities disclosures to determine interim maintenance. The respondents submit that the wife’s income is limited and that Rs.11,000 is inadequate for the child, and the father’s higher income warrants a careful assessment. The High Court upholds the Family Court’s direction to decide quantum on merits while maintaining the interim order, with a clear note that observations in this judgment shall not bind the Family Court.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant (husband) contends that the interim award of Rs.6,000 to the wife and Rs.5,000 to the child is not sustainable, given the wife’s employment and possible income. He argues that Rajnesh v. Neha requires evaluation of assets and liabilities via affidavits and that the court should revisit the quantum. He asserts his own income (~Rs.30,000/month, reduced to Rs.28,000 during COVID-19) and offers to pay up to Rs.7,000/month as maintenance, urging the Family Court to determine the quantum on merits after considering evidence. He emphasizes wife desertion and lack of stable necessity for higher support.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents (wife and child) contend that maintenance is necessary for the wife and the minor, given their needs and limited income. They rely on the Family Court’s assessment and argue Rs.11,000 total maintenance is reasonable against the husband’s Rs.30,000/month income. They point to Rajnesh’s ratio on asset disclosure and advocate fair consideration of needs, urging the Family Court to determine the quantum on merits after evidence is produced. They maintain the interim order should stand, as it reflects the needs of the child and wife.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajnesh v. Neha and Another	2020 (6) KHC 1	Positive	The court endorses the ratio in Rajnesh regarding interim maintenance and asset disclosure requirements, applying its reasoning to guide the present proceedings.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN** **FRIDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 1ST ASWINA, 1944 OP(CRL.) NO. 402 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2021 IN MP NO.20/2021 IN MC 269/2020 & THE ORDER DATED 24.05.2022 IN REVIEW PETITION, MP NO.728/2021 IN MP NO.20/2021 IN MC NO.269 OF 2020 PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONER/REVIEW PETITIONER:** **KIRAN T.A. AGED 33 YEARS S/O ASHOKAN T.P., THITTAYIL HOUSE, PONNARIMANGALAM, MULAVUKADU P.O., COCHIN-682504.** **(WORKING AT STERLING ELECTRO ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,101-106, EXIM LINK BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, MULAND- GEREGOAN LINK ROAD, NEAR NAHUR RAILWAY STATION, BHANDUP WEST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400 078)** **BY ADVS. ARUN SEBASTIAN M.SREELAKSHMI** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS :** **1 NAYANA A.S. AGED 31 YEARS D/O K.V. SANJEEV, ABHILASH, BINNY ROAD, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN, PIN - 682006 2 ZIA AGED 2 1/2 YEARS, D/O KIRAN T.A., ABHILASH, BINNY ROAD, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN-682006 MINOR BEING REPRESENTED BY MOTHER, NAYANA A.S.,1ST RESPONDENT BY ADV SRI.R.PUSHPANGATHAN PILLAI** **THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P.(Crl.)No.402 of 2022 -:2:- ## **O.P.(Crl.)No.402 of 2022** ## **-------------------------------------------------------** ## **J U D G M E N T** In this original petition, order dated 06.08.2021 in M.P.No.20 of 2021 in M.C.No.269 of 2020 pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam is under challenge at the instance of the respondent in the above petition who is the husband of the first original petitioner and father of the second petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The original petitioners, who are wife and minor child aged one year respectively, filed M.C.No.269 of 2020 before the Family Court asserting that they have no O.P.(Crl.)No.402 of 2022 -:3:- sufficient income to maintain themselves and the respondent/the petitioner herein is having sufficient income to maintain the original petitioners. The MC is still pending and the same requires adjudication based on the evidence to be adduced by the Family Court. 4. Along with the petition, M.P.No.20 of 2021 was filed seeking interim maintenance. After considering the petition filed by the original petitioners and the objection raised by the husband, the Family Court directed the respondent to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.5,000/- to the second petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent/the original petitioner herein would submit that the petitioner has no objection insofar as grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to the minor child and the petitioner has serious objection in the matter of grant of O.P.(Crl.)No.402 of 2022 -:4:- maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs.6,000/-. She submitted that the wife hesitated to reside along with the petitioner and she deserted the company of the petitioner and therefore, she is not entitled to pay maintenance. Secondly, it is argued that the wife is having job and income and therefore, she is capable to maintain herself and in such view of the matter, the interim order of maintenance granted in favour of the wife is not liable to be set aside. 6. The learned counsel also given emphasis to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in [2020 (6) KHC 1], **Rajnesh v. Neha and Another** to contend that the procedure provided therein in the matter of grant of interim maintenance by insisting filing affidavit disclosed assets and liabilities to the parties should be looked into. She submitted further that as per the affidavit filed by the respondent, he admitted that he has been getting O.P.(Crl.)No.402 of 2022 -:5:- Rs.30,000/- as the monthly income and he has to spend Rs.5,000/- towards the maintenance of the aged father and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as rent for his residential accommodation i.e. place of job in Mumbai. Therefore, the court below went wrong in granting interim maintenance as per the impugned order. 7. Repelling this contention, the learned counsel for the respondents herein/the original petitioners would submit that though the first petitioner is having a temporary job terminable at any moment and thereby, she is getting meagre salary, she could not maintain herself and the minor child aged one year, by the said income. He also submitted that Rs.11,000/- is the total amount granted by the Family Court and the same is quite insufficient to maintain the child itself and therefore, there is no reason to re-visit the order of interim maintenance or its quantum. He also submitted that the O.P.(Crl.)No.402 of 2022 -:6:- income disclosed by the review petitioner is too low as he has been getting a good salary. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner further that the petitioner is ready to pay Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance and the order may be modified to that extend. 9. In this matter, in the affidavit filed by the respondent, he admitted that his income is Rs.30,000/and the same is reduced during Covid-19 at Rs.28,000/-. In the matter of grant of maintenance, the ratio in **Rajnesh** 's case (supra) is to be followed. Admittedly, the respondent is getting Rs.30,000/- as his salary. Only Rs.11,000/- out of the same ordered to be paid as interim maintenance. The actual amount of maintenance to be paid in this matter shall be decided by the Family Court on merits, when the issue will be considered on the basis of evidence to be adduced. It appears that the Family O.P.(Crl.)No.402 of 2022 -:7:- Court granted Rs.6,000/- and Rs.5,000/- alone as interim maintenance and the said amount appears to be reasonable and therefore, I am not inclined to re-visit the order in any manner. Accordingly, this original petition is dismissed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there shall be an observation to the effect that the order in this matter shall not have any binding effect. Therefore, it is specifically ordered that the Family Court shall decide the quantum of maintenance in this matter solely based on the evidence to be adduced, untrammelled by the observations in this judgment. Sd/- **A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE** rkj O.P.(Crl.)No.402 of 2022 -:8:- ## **APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 402/2022** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE M.C. BEARING NO.MC 269/2020 FILED BEFORE THE COURT BELOW BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN** **Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME DISCLOSURE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IN M.C. NO.269/2020 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE COURT BELOW** **Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME DISCLOSURE AFFIDAVIT OF FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN M.C. NO.269/2020** **Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION BEARING NO. M.P. NO.20/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT BELOW Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT SUBMISSION PREFERRED BEFORE THE COURT BELOW IN M.P.NO.20/2021 IN M.C.NO.269/2020 Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.08.2021 IN M.P. NO.20/2021 IN M.C.NO. 269/2020** O.P.(Crl.)No.402 of 2022 -:9:- **Exhibit P9** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.P.NO. 728/2021 DATED 24.05.2022** **Exhibit P10** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. (FC) NO.200/2022** **RESPONDENT(s)' EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THIS ORDER DATED 8-8-2022 IN I.A. NO. 4730/2022 IN O.P. NO. 70/2022** **EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THIS ORDER DATED 19-4-2022 IN O.P.(CRL) 175/2022** **EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 12-8-2022 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN O.P.(FC) 450/2022** **EXHIBIT R1(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-8-2022 IN O.P.(FC) NO.450/2022**