J. ANAND Vs. L. VASANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 24.03.2010 passed on I.A. No. 3 in M.C. No. 2390/2010. By the said order, the Family Court has granted the maintenance of Rs. 1,500/ - each to the wife and child of the petitioner herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order would contend that the Family Court was not justified in granting the said maintenance in the absence of there being proof of income of the petitioner. It is contended that though the petitioner had not produced any documents before the Family Court, presently the salary certificate of the petitioner is produced at Annexure -'E' and the same would indicate that the net pay of the petitioner is in a sum of Rs. 6,968/ - and as such, if the amount as ordered by the Family Court is paid to the respondent the petitioner would be put to great difficulty inasmuch as he has other members of the family to maintain. It is therefore contended that the Family Court was not justified and the order is liable to be set aside.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent would however seek to justify the order passed by the Family Court.

(3.) IF this aspect of the matter is kept in view and the document at Annexure -'E' relied upon herein is taken note, it is seen that the petitioner in any event is earning a sum of Rs. 7,000/ - which is on his own admission. If that be so, the details furnished by the respondent with regard to expenses for the maintenance and education of their child itself would indicate that the amount of Rs. 1,500/ - granted to the child would itself not be sufficient to take care of the educational expenses of the child. If that aspect of the matter is kept in view the sum of Rs. 1,500/ - granted to the wife will have to be taken into consideration as a maintenance to maintain herself and also to provide maintenance to the child. Therefore, if these aspects of the matter is kept in view, I am of the opinion that the interim maintenance granted by the Family Court is not excessive and the same does not call for interference. Similarly, the litigation expenses granted is also not excessive. Therefore, the order impugned herein does not call for interference. It would be open for the parties to seek for early disposal of the matter before the Family Court. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.