VIMALA MARY JOSE Vs. SHAJI JACOB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner and counter petitioner in M.C.No.23/14 have filed the above petitions respectively challenging the interim order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam in M.P.No.321/14 under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

(2.) The common case in both these petitions is that the respondent in the lower court married the petitioner in M.C.No.23/14 as per custom and while they were living together, the petitioner in that case has become pregnant and thereafter, there was some misunderstanding between them and they have started living separately. The case of the wife is that after separation, no maintenance was paid and she requires huge amounts for meeting her medical expenses during her pregnancy and she requires huge amount to meet the delivery expenses also which she is not capable of procuring. According to the wife, the petitioner is well employed and and he is getting not less than Rs.70,000/- per month. So, according to the petitioner, she is unable to maintain herself and also look after the welfare of the child in the womb for which she requires good amount. So, she filed the petition for maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per month. She also filed Crl.M.P.No.321/2014 claiming interim maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- as she requires expenses for delivery which she estimated as Rs.1,00,000/- and according to the wife, it is the liability of the husband to pay. The respondent in the lower court filed counter contenting that the marriage itself was conducted suppressing the earlier marriage and so, he filed O.P.No.2363/2013 before the same court for declaring the marriage null and void and that was pending before that court. Further, he was not getting a monthly income as mentioned, but he is getting only Rs.15,000/- per month. Further, according to him, the petitioner is employed and she is getting income as such she is not entitled to get maintenance. So, he prayed for dismissal of that application. After considering the contention of both the parties, the learned Family Court fixed an amount of Rs.5,000/- as interim maintenance from the date of order in favour of the wife payable by the husband. The petitioner in the lower court challenged the same on the ground that it is inadequate whereas, the respondent in the case filed petition stating that she is not entitled for any interim maintenance and also in the alternative the amount awarded is excessive.

(3.) Heard both sides.