EMMANUEL JEENUS Vs. JOMOL STEPHEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the respondent in M.C. No.12 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court, Alappuzha. The aforesaid petition was filed under section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for brevity) by the respondent herein , who is the wife of the petitioner. By order dated 19.9.2016, the petitioner was directed to pay interim maintenance to the respondent herein at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of application. The aforesaid order is under challenge.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the original petition was filed in the month of January, 2016 and along with the said application, an application seeking interim relief was filed. The petitioner filed objection in the month of April, 2016. However, when the matter came up for hearing on the ground that the counsel for the petitioner was not present, the learned Family Court without even taking note of the contentions advanced by the petitioner in his objection, has granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was a bar man and he had challenged the entitlement as well as the quantum of maintenance in his objection filed. It is prayed that a direction be given to the learned Family Court to consider the matter afresh after giving him an opportunity.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent on the other hand submits that the claim raised by the 2nd respondent was for a sum of Rs.10,000/- per mensem and in the interim application all that was claimed was Rs.5,000/-. Taking note of the facts and circumstances, the learned Family Court ordered only a sum of Rs.3,000/- per mensem, which cannot be said to be excessive.