MANJU B. Vs. PUSHPALATHA K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-husband is knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing the interim maintenance order dtd. 13/3/2023 whereby the learned VI Addl. Prl. Judge of Family Court, Bengaluru in his pending M.C.No.2683/2019 has directed him to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000.00 w.e.f. 5/1/2022 and a lump sum of Rs.5,000.00 towards interim litigation expenses. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues for invalidation of the said order.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasoning of the court below as assigned in the impugned order. It hardly needs to be stated that the impugned order is a product of exercise of discretion vested in the court below u/s.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955. Still the main matter is pending and therefore the impugned order is subject to outcome of the same. Such discretionary order do not merit a deeper examination at the hands of the writ court exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227 , the other provision namely Article 226 having been ornamentally mentioned in the writ petition.

(3.) There is no much dispute about the marital relationship and the legitimacy of the two children namely Chi. Thrishul & Chi. Varalakshmi, born from the wedlock; they are in the custody of the respondent-wife. In the costly days like these, what is awarded as interim maintenance cannot be faltered from any angle. The statutory provisions of the kind are a piece of socio welfare legislation enacted for the protection of hapless women and therefore they need to be construed to give effect to the intent of the Parliament. In the absence of the respondent-wife being shown to be gainfully employed, it is the duty of husband to provide sustenance till the divorce petition is adjudged. An argument to the contrary if accepted and impugned order is set at naught, a grave injustice and enormous hardship would be occasioned to the wife. Conversely, no injustice would be caused to the petitioner by paying for the maintenance of the wife.