ABDUL RASAK Vs. RASHIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks to quash two orders. Copies of those orders are Exts P5 and P6. The relief is sought under article 227 of the Constitution of India. The original petition is opposed by the respondents.

(2.) Heard Sri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Shamsudin, the learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) The proceedings before the family court is one for maintenance under Sec.125 of Cr.P.C. Maintenance allowances were claimed only for respondents 2 and The family court as per Ext P5 order directed payment of interim maintenance by the petitioner to respondents 2 and 3 at the monthly rates of Rs 2000/- and Rs 1500/- respectively. An application filed by the petitioner wanting a DNA fingerprint test conducted was neither allowed nor dismissed by the family court. It said that the same would be considered at the appropriate time during the trial. Ext P6 is a copy of the said order. Deferring the disposal of the application for DNA test to the stage of evidence cannot be considered improper. I therefore find little scope for interference with Ext P6 order.