M.P. AKASH RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. G. SIMITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and father of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 is the minor child. The wife has filed an application for divorce. That matter is pending before the Family Court from 2008. The wife filed an application for litigation expenses and maintenance pendente lite. She claimed that she is impecunious and has no income of her own. Her husband, the petitioner is employed abroad and earns an income of Rs. 50,000/ - per mensem, she asserted. The application was resisted. Husband denied the allegations about his means and the want of means on the part of the claimant - wife. No evidence was produced before the court below. On the materials available in the case, the court below proceeded to pass the impugned interim order directing payment of an amount of Rs. 7500/ - as litigation expenses and an amount of Rs. 6,000/ - per mensem as maintenance.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. He prays that the extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court may be invoked to interfere with the impugned order.

(3.) ABSOLUTELY no materials were placed before court in support of the assertions of the petitioner. The order passed by the court below, in these circumstances, according to us, is absolutely reasonable and at any rate does not warrant interference invoking the extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This, we are satisfied, is not a fit case where this Court should invoke its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order. The challenge raised, therefore fails. This writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limine.