High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-11-30O.P.(Crl.) Nos.281/2020 & 335/2020 disposed of ...

OP(Crl).281/2020 & OP(Crl).335/2020, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Case / Petition Number:OP(Crl).281/2020 & OP(Crl).335/2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Alexander Thomas
Judgment Date: 2020-11-30
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court upheld that the interim maintenance order is not perverse or unreasonable, and disposed of the petitions with directions to the Family Court, Ernakulam, to expedite the final disposal of MC 183/2018, preferably within four months and not later than five months, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both sides. The court also directed adherence to the Supreme Court guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anorther to the extent applicable for the final adjudication of the maintenance claims. The original petitions are thus finally disposed of.
Final Disposition: O.P.(Crl.) Nos.281/2020 & 335/2020 disposed of with directions to expeditiously dispose MC 183/2018, applying Rajnesh guidelines where applicable.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

DHEERA N.G.
SOORYA NARAYANAN (minor, represented by mother)
SIMEESH S.

Respondents

SIMEESH S., S/O C.K.SOMANATHAN
THE STATE OF KERALA, represented by the Public Prosecutor
ADDL 3 EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE
ADDL 4 MANAGER ESI BRANCH OFFICE
STATE MEDICAL COMMISSIONER ESI CORPORATION

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. M. Firoz
• Smt. M. Shajna
• Smt. Kala G. Nambiar
• Sri. E. C. Ahmed Fazil
• Sri. P. C. Muhammed Noushiq
• Sri. T. K. Radhakrishnan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. T. K. Radhakrishnan
• Sri. T. R. Hari Krishnan
• Sri. T. V. Ajayakumar (SC, ESI Corp.)
• Santhosh Peter, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

These are two criminal original petitions under Article 227 challenging interim maintenance orders passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam in MC 183/2018. OP(Crl.)281/2020 is filed by DHEERA N.G. (wife) and by Soorya Narayanan, a minor represented by his mother, seeking enhancement of the interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court (Rs. 2,500 per month) and challenging other aspects of the order. OP(Crl.)335/2020 is filed by Simeesh S., challenging the same Family Court order as being too onerous on him and seeking a reduction of the maintenance imposed, while also noting the pendency of the main MC 183/2018. The High Court, after hearing both sides, refrains from disturbing the interim maintenance on grounds of not being perverse or unreasonable, but directs that the main matter be disposed of promptly. It directs the Family Court to complete disposal of MC 183/2018 with reasonable opportunity for hearing within four months and, in any case, within five months from the production of a certified copy of the judgment. The Court also requires that the Family Court apply the Supreme Court’s Rajnesh v. Neha & Anorther guidelines to the extent applicable for final adjudication of the claims. With these directions, the petitions are disposed of, while emphasizing adherence to due process and timely resolution of the underlying maintenance dispute.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 227 of the Constitution of India

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The wife, DHEERA N.G., contends that the interim maintenance in MC 183/2018, at Rs. 2,500 per month, is inadequate and should be enhanced for herself and the minor, Soorya Narayanan. The petitioner in OP(Crl.)335/2020, Simeesh S., argues that the maintenance obligation imposed on him is excessive and should be reduced, and that the main MC 183/2018 should be disposed of promptly. The court heard both sides and noted relevant evidence, including medical treatment records, while recognizing the pendency of the main proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the interim maintenance order is just and should not be interfered with at this stage. They emphasise that MC 183/2018 is pending and that final adjudication should comply with existing Supreme Court guidelines, to be applied by the Family Court in due course.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajnesh v. Neha & Anorther	2020 (6) KHC 1 (SC)	Positive	Used to guide the Family Court's final adjudication and to ensure compliance with Supreme Court maintenance guidelines.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against OP(Crl).281/2020 & OP(Crl).335/2020, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **OP(Crl.).No.281 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN M.P. NO.509/2018 DATED 10.03.2020 IN MC NO.183/2018 OF FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 DHEERA N.G. AGED 30 YEARS. W/O SIMEESH.S, NIKATHIL HOUSE, MULAVUKAD,P.O.,ERNAKULAM, PIN-682504.** **2 SOORYA NARAYANAN, AGED 8 YEARS, S/O SIMEESH.S, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, DHEERA.N.G, NIKATHIL HOUSE, MULAVUKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-682504.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA SMT.KALA G.NAMBIAR SRI.E.C.AHAMED FAZIL SRI.P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 SIMEESH S., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.C.K.SOMANATHAN, VELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NETTOOR.P.O, MARADU(VIA), ERNAKULAM-682040.** - **2 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** - ***ADDL 3** **EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, MALLUR COMPLEX, ST. FRANCIS CHURCH ROAD, KALOOR - 682 017, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.** - ***ADDL 4 MANAGER ESI BRANCH OFFICE, NADAYAPPILLY SHOPPING COMPLEX,** 2 O.P. (Crl.) Nos.281/2020 & 335/2020 **HILL PALACE ROAD, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM - 682 309.** > ***ADDL 5 STATE MEDICAL COMMISSIONER ESI CORPORATION, PANJADWEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROAD, THRISSUR - 680 020.** ***(ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3, 4 AND 5 ARE IMPLEADED BY ORDER DATED 30.10.2020 IN IA.1/2020 IN OP(CRL) 281/2020).** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARI KRISHNAN R3-5 BY SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR, SC, ESI CORPN.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.11.2020, ALONG WITH OP(Crl.).335/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 O.P. (Crl.) Nos.281/2020 & 335/2020 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **OP(Crl.).No.335 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN M.P. NO.509/2018 DATED 10.03.2020 IN M.C. 183/2018 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONER:** **SIMEESH.S. AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.SRI.C.K.SOMANATHAN, VELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NETTOOR P.O., MARADU (VIA), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 040** **BY ADV. SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 DHEERA N.G. AGED 30, D/O.SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAN, NIKARTHIL HOUSE, MULAVUKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM, REP. BY HER MOTHER SUDHA, AGED ABOUT 50, NIKARTHIL HOUSE, MULAVUKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 504 2 SOORYA NARAYANAN AGED8, S/O.SRI. SIMEESH, NIKARTHIL HOUSE, MULAVUKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM, MINOR REP. BY HIS MOTHER DHEERA N.G. 3 THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031** **THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.11.2020, ALONG WITH OP(Crl.).281/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 4 O.P. (Crl.) Nos.281/2020 & 335/2020 ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ------------------------------------------O.P. (Crl.) Nos.281 of 2020 & 335 of 2020 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 30[th] day of November, 2020 ## **O R D E R** The prayers in the O.P.Crl. No.281/2020 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows : _"i) To call for the records leading to Exhibit P9 order passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam, in M.P. No.509 of 2018 dated 10.03.2020 in M.C. No.183 of 2018 and set aside the same to the extent it disallowed the claims of the Petitioner and allow the above case as prayed for with cost._ _ii) To grant such other reliefs in favour of the petitioner as this Hon'ble court may deem fit to grant.”_ The prayers in the O.P.Crl. No.335/2020 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows : _"i) To call for the entire records leads to Ext.P8 order passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam, in M.P. No.509/2018 in M.C. No.183/2018 dated 10.03.2020 and set aside the same to the extent proportionate to the salary of the petitioner and allow the petition as prayed for with cost._ _ii) To grant such other reliefs in favour of the petitioner as this Hon'ble court may deem fit to grant.”_ 2. Heard Sri.K.M.Firoz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (wife) in O.P.(Crl.)No.281/2020, 5 O.P. (Crl.) Nos.281/2020 & 335/2020 Sri.P.J.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (husband) in O.P.(Crl.) No.335/2020, Sri.Ajay Kumar, learned Standing counsel for the Employee State Insurance appearing for additional Respondent in O.P.(Crl.) No.281/2020 and Sri.Santhosh Peter, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State of Kerala in both the cases. 3. The wife and the husband have both challenged the interim order of maintenance granted by the Family Court, Ernakulam in M.C. No.183/2018. The wife would contend that the interim maintenance granted to her only at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month is on the lower side and should be increased, whereas the husband would contend that the interim maintenance ordered against him is on the higher side and should be reduced. Certain other contentions are also been raised by the wife in O.P.(Crl.) No.281/2020. However, those aspects may not be strictly relevant and germane for the disposal of the present petition. 4. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the interim order of maintenance made by the learned Magistrate cannot be seriously faulted as perverse or unreasonable, so as to warrant interdiction in extraordinary 6 O.P. (Crl.) Nos.281/2020 & 335/2020 discretional remedy conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The main matter in M.C. No.183/2018 is even now pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam. Therefore, the right and proper course will be to ensure that the Family Court takes effective steps for final disposal of the said main matter in M.C.No.183/2018 after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides. 5. In that view of the matter, it is ordered that the Family Court, Ernakulam will take all reasonable endeavours possible in the circumstances, to ensure the early final disposal of M.C.No.183/2018 without much delay and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment, at any rate, within an outer time limit of 5 months therefrom. 6. While doing so, the Family Court, Ernakulam will ensure the compliance of the various guidelines and norms laid down by the Apex Court in the recent judgment in _**Rajnesh v. Neha & Anorther**_ [2020 (6) KHC 1 (SC)] to the extent it is applicable for the final adjudication of the claims by the Family Court in relation to maintenance. 7 O.P. (Crl.) Nos.281/2020 & 335/2020 With these observations and directions, the above original petitions (criminal) will stand finally disposed of. ## **Sd/-** **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** Skk//20112020 8 O.P. (Crl.) Nos.281/2020 & 335/2020 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(Crl.) 281/2020** **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN MC NO.183 OF 2018 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM PETITION, M.P.NO.509 OF 2018 IN M.C.NO.183 OF 2018 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN M.P.NO.509 OF 2018** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT TO COUNTER IN M.P.NO.509 OF 2018 IN MC NO.183 OF 2018 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHYSIOTHERAPY CASH RECEIPT DATED 31.1.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 10.2.2020 ISSUED FROM THE SEVANA MEDICALS.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT CERTIFICATE DT.1.2.2020 OF THE PETITIONER BY THE PHSIOTHERAPIST** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 22.1.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, MULAVUKAD.** - **EXHIBIT P9 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.3.2020 IN M.P.NO.509 OF 2018 IN M.C.NO.183 OF 2018 BY THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM** - **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** 9 O.P. (Crl.) Nos.281/2020 & 335/2020 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(Crl.) 335/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY P.L. LAWRANCE AND CO., SHOWING THE DAILY WAGES OF THE PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE REGISTER OF WAGES SHOWING THE WAGES OF THE PETITIONER FROM 1.2.2020 TO 15.2.2020** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR DIVORCE BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM AS O.P.NO.147/2018** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO THE PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE M.C.183/2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE M.P.509/2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED OBJECTION ON 13.9.2018 ALONG WITH HIS SALARY CERTIFICATE FILED BY THE PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.3.2020 IN M.P.509/2018 BY THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL**