The High Court · 2025

2. Sri.Blaze K.Jose – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client was enjoying a carry home salary of less than Rs.48,000/- at the time when the order was issued and that today, it is far less. He argued that the first respondent has married again and that the certificate of such marriage has been produced on record, hence incapacitating her from obtaining any maintenance from his client. He, therefore, prayed that the order of payment of interim maintenance to her be set aside; or in the alternative, that his client be allowed to deposit the money in Court without her receiving it, awaiting enquiry as to whether she is now married, or living with another person. He OP (FC) NO. 169 OF 2025 4 contended that, even if the first respondent is not legally married but is living with another person, she is disentitled to any maintenance.

3. Sri.Nimal Joseph – appearing for the respondents, in refutation, submitted that the first respondent is neither married, nor living with anybody else; and that she is thus entitled to the amount of maintenance as ordered by the learned Family Court. He prayed that this Original Petition be dismissed.

4. We have considered Ext.P5 on the touchstone of the rival submissions.

5. It is thus obvious that the petitioner challenges Ext.P5 on two grounds, namely that he is drawing less than Rs.48,000/- in salary, as has been recorded herein; and that the first respondent is either married, or living with another person.

6. We are afraid that we cannot accede to the request of Sri.Blaze K.Jose to intervene with Ext.P5 at this time because, both the afore issues are in the realm of facts, which will have to be decided after taking evidence.

7. As matters now stand, the petitioner says that the OP (FC) NO. 169 OF 2025 5 first respondent is married, or living with another person; but this remains uncorroborated as of now and in fact, strongly opposed and refuted. That said, qua his allegation that he is drawing less than Rs.48,000/-, this is not a matter that we can decide because it is for him to have it established before the learned Family Court. In the afore circumstances and in order to ensure that the rival interests of the parties are sufficiently protected, we order this Original Petition in the following manner, modifying Ext.P5. (a) The directions in Ext.P5 qua respondents 2, 3 and 4 are confirmed, since they are not under challenge. (b) As regards the order of maintenance in favour of the first respondent, we direct the petitioner to deposit Rs.12,000/- per month before the learned Family Court henceforth without fail. Since there is a dispute as to whether the first respondent is married or otherwise, we direct the learned Court to consider this, after affording necessary opportunities to both sides, thus culminating in a fresh order, as quickly as is possible. OP (FC) NO. 169 OF 2025 6 (c) As a corollary, we order that, until such time as the learned Court issues order in terms of (b) above, the first respondent be allowed to draw only half the amount deposited and the balance be maintained in deposit, preferably in an interest bearing account in a nationalized bank/scheduled bank. Needless to say, if the learned Court is to find contrary to the assertions of the petitioner, then the first respondent will be entitled to the deposited amount in full, along with accrued interest, if any. That being said, the question whether the first respondent would be disentitled to maintenance because she is living with another person – assuming it to be true, without affirming it – is left open to be decided by the learned Family Court in due course. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE OP (FC) NO. 169 OF 2025 7 APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 169/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.02/2021 IN O.P. NO. 1181/2019 DATED 31.12.2020 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN O.P. NO. 1181/2019 DATED 17.07.2024 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MARRIAGE REGISTER (MAJOR SREE BALASUBRAMANYA SWAMY KSHETHRAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 28/06/2021 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY SLIP OF THE PETITIONER DATED 19.03.2025 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/01/2023 IN I.A. NO. 02/2021 IN O.P. 1181/2019 OF THE HONOURABLE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

2. Sri.Blaze K.Jose – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client was enjoying a carry home salary of less than Rs.48,000/- at the time when the order was issued and that today, it is far less. He argued that the first respondent has married again and that the certificate of such marriage has been produced on record, hence incapacitating her from obtaining any maintenance from his client. He, therefore, prayed that the order of payment of interim maintenance to her be set aside; or in the alternative, that his client be allowed to deposit the money in Court without her receiving it, awaiting enquiry as to whether she is now married, or living with another person. He OP (FC) NO. 169 OF 2025 4 contended that, even if the first respondent is not legally married but is living with another person, she is disentitled to any maintenance.

3. Sri.Nimal Joseph – appearing for the respondents, in refutation, submitted that the first respondent is neither married, nor living with anybody else; and that she is thus entitled to the amount of maintenance as ordered by the learned Family Court. He prayed that this Original Petition be dismissed.

4. We have considered Ext.P5 on the touchstone of the rival submissions.

5. It is thus obvious that the petitioner challenges Ext.P5 on two grounds, namely that he is drawing less than Rs.48,000/- in salary, as has been recorded herein; and that the first respondent is either married, or living with another person.

6. We are afraid that we cannot accede to the request of Sri.Blaze K.Jose to intervene with Ext.P5 at this time because, both the afore issues are in the realm of facts, which will have to be decided after taking evidence.

7. As matters now stand, the petitioner says that the OP (FC) NO. 169 OF 2025 5 first respondent is married, or living with another person; but this remains uncorroborated as of now and in fact, strongly opposed and refuted. That said, qua his allegation that he is drawing less than Rs.48,000/-, this is not a matter that we can decide because it is for him to have it established before the learned Family Court. In the afore circumstances and in order to ensure that the rival interests of the parties are sufficiently protected, we order this Original Petition in the following manner, modifying Ext.P5. (a) The directions in Ext.P5 qua respondents 2, 3 and 4 are confirmed, since they are not under challenge. (b) As regards the order of maintenance in favour of the first respondent, we direct the petitioner to deposit Rs.12,000/- per month before the learned Family Court henceforth without fail. Since there is a dispute as to whether the first respondent is married or otherwise, we direct the learned Court to consider this, after affording necessary opportunities to both sides, thus culminating in a fresh order, as quickly as is possible. OP (FC) NO. 169 OF 2025 6 (c) As a corollary, we order that, until such time as the learned Court issues order in terms of (b) above, the first respondent be allowed to draw only half the amount deposited and the balance be maintained in deposit, preferably in an interest bearing account in a nationalized bank/scheduled bank. Needless to say, if the learned Court is to find contrary to the assertions of the petitioner, then the first respondent will be entitled to the deposited amount in full, along with accrued interest, if any. That being said, the question whether the first respondent would be disentitled to maintenance because she is living with another person – assuming it to be true, without affirming it – is left open to be decided by the learned Family Court in due course. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE OP (FC) NO. 169 OF 2025 7 APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 169/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.02/2021 IN O.P. NO. 1181/2019 DATED 31.12.2020 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN O.P. NO. 1181/2019 DATED 17.07.2024 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MARRIAGE REGISTER (MAJOR SREE BALASUBRAMANYA SWAMY KSHETHRAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 28/06/2021 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY SLIP OF THE PETITIONER DATED 19.03.2025 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/01/2023 IN I.A. NO. 02/2021 IN O.P. 1181/2019 OF THE HONOURABLE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM