MOHANAN NAIR Vs. SHEEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner impugns Ext.P6 order. Petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3. The respondents filed Ext.P1 which is M.C. No.238 of 2009, a petition under Sec. 125 of the Code of Code Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance. In the same, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 objection. Subsequently the respondents filed Ext.P3 which is an application seeking interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15,000/= per month to the first respondent, Rs. 11,500/= each to respondents 2 and 3 till the disposal of Ext.P1 and also Rs. 25,000/= as expenses. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner sought two days' time to file objection to Ext.P3. However, by Ext.P4, the Family Court, noting that no objections were filed, Ext.P3 was allowed as it was not opposed. Petitioner filed Ext.P5 praying for setting aside Ext.P4 and the matter may be posted for evidence and the case disposed of. It is the said application which has been rejected vide Ext.P6. In Ext.P6, it is stated as follows:

(2.) We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have actually filed petition seeking interim maintenance and in fact, the amount which was ordered to be paid is being paid regularly by the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner has only sought reasonable time of two days to file objections to Ext.P3, and he will point out that huge sums as claimed in Ext.P3 which we have already referred to, are ordered to be paid, for which there is no justification.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner is seized of income from the property sufficient to warrant the passing of the impugned order. He also disputes the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was making payments regularly in pursuance of the interim order of maintenance.