An interim order passed by the Family Court, Kottarakkara granting interim maintenance to the respondents herein is under challenge in this revision. The respondents are the wife and the minor children of the revision petitioner. Admittedly they have been residing separately from the revision petitioner for 1½ years, and the wife would find her own justification for living separately from the husband. In view of neglect on the part of the husband she filed M.C.No.143/2013 before the Family Court, claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. She also filed Crl.M.P No.443/2013 for interim maintenance. After hearing both sides the trial court passed orders on the said application, granting maintenance to the wife and two children at the rate of ₹1,500/- each per month .
2. On hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and on a perusal of the impugned order, I find no reason or scope to admit the revision to files. What is granted is only interim maintenance, and that too at a reasonable rate of ₹ 1,500/- each per month. We all know the present day cost of living which is always on the increase. So the amount does not require any interference. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he is not in fact liable to pay maintenance to his wife, who has no justifiable or legal reason to live separate from him. Of course this is not a matter to be looked into and decided at this stage. Whether she is in fact entitled to claim maintenance, will have to finally decided by the trial court on merits. The learned counsel also submitted that the revision petitioner's wife is in fact in possession of 30 cents of property yielding income. Of course it is submitted that another civil proceeding is pending before the Family Court for declaration of the revision petitioner's absolute title over the property. Those things need not be looked into at this stage, where only the question of interim maintenance is considered. However, the grievance of the revision petitioner will have to be considered, and his interest will have also to be protected. If ultimately it is found that his wife is not entitled to get maintenance from him under Section 125 Cr.P.C, whatever amount paid by him as interim maintenance to her can well be adjusted towards the amount due to the children. The object of awarding interim maintenance is to provide something to the deserted wife and children for subsistence. That object will be defeated if the order in her favour is reversed. However, the revision petitioner will definitely get justice by adjustment of the amount as observed above, if he wins ultimately. I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order granting interim maintenance. Let the matters be decided on merits in the main proceedings. In such a situation this revision is liable to be dismissed in limine.
In the result, this revision is dismissed in limine without being admitted to files. However, it is observed that if it is ultimately found that the revision petitioner is not liable to pay separate maintenance to his wife, whatever amount paid by him to her under the impugned order will be adjusted towards the amount of maintenance due to the children. The revision petitioner is directed to make deposit of the entire arrear due till this date within three months, and he will continue to make payment at the said rate in future till the main proceeding is decided. In the present circumstances where the revision petitioner has serious contest regarding the right of his wife to claim separate maintenance, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the matter at the earliest, if possible within six months.
Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab