Dinesan vs Saritha

Thomas P. Joseph, J.—Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2010 on M.P. No. 2029 of 2010 in M.C. No. 196 of 2010 of Family Court, Thrissur directing him to pay interim maintenance to the Respondent, his wife at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. According to the Petitioner, the marriage was in the year, 2006 and the subsequent conduct of Respondent disentitled her from claiming maintenance. In the circumstances, court below was not correct in awarding interim maintenance to the Respondent. It is also contended that maintenance awarded is excessive.

Whether, Respondent is ultimately entitled to get maintenance from Petitioner is a matter to be decided by the Family Court after enquiry. What is now awarded is interim maintenance for the bare sustenance of the Respondent. Though Respondent claimed that Petitioner is running an electrical shop and earning Rs. 25,000/- per month, that is disputed by Petitioner. He claimed that he is working as an employee in the said shop and earning Rs. 200/- per day. According to the Petitioner, he is not having work every day. Assuming so, it is revealed that Petitioner is aged 29 years. There is no case that he is not able- bodied and that on account of any physical infirmity he is unable to earn. Hence I must presume for the time being that Petitioner is capable of earning. Though Petitioner claimed that he is only an employee in the electrical shop, no evidence in that line is produced. What is awarded to the Respondent aged 23 years is only Rs. 50/- a day as interim maintenance. I am not inclined to think that the said amount is beyond the paying capacity of Petitioner. I do not find reason to interfere.

Resultantly this petition fails. It is dismissed.