RAMESAN Vs. ABITHA, W/O.RAMESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Miscellaneous Case was filed by the petitioner, who is the respondent before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, challenging the interim order of maintenance passed in M.P. No. 137/2013 in M.C. No. 56/2013 on the file of that Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) It is alleged in the petition that petitioner herein is the husband of the first respondent and father of other respondents. The first respondent filed before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda seeking maintenance for herself and for and on behalf of her children at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- each. It is also alleged in the petition that the petitioners in the lower court claimed that the respondent therein is working as an advocate clerk and also doing other business and getting not less than Rs. 50,000/- per month and the respondent in the lower court is not having any income to maintain herself and she has been neglected by the counter petitioner in the lower court, she filed the above application for maintenance from the petitioner herein. She also filed M.P. No. 137/2013 claiming interim maintenance at the same rate claimed in the original petition for maintenance. The respondent in the lower court appeared and filed an objection stating that he is not an advocate clerk, but a coolie by profession and he is suffering from some illness and on account of the illness, he is unable to do any work. He had further contended that he is having only less income with that he will have to meet his medical expenses as well and offers to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month. He had also produced certain documents to show his illness. The learned Family Court Judge after considering the contentions of both the parties, passed an impugned order fixing interim monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the petitioners in the lower court jointly. This order is being challenged by the petitioner herein by filing this petition before this Court.

(3.) Respondents 2 and 3 are children of the first respondent and service on first respondent will be sufficient for and on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 as well as she represents them in the lower court also. So it can be treated as service complete.