2025:KER:27507 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 OP (FC) NO. 183 OF 2025 ORDER DATED 19.02.2025 IN IA 4/2023 IN OP NO.2556/2023, FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: DR. MANSOOR MOHAMMED KASSIM, AGED 48 YEARS S/O. MOHAMMED KASSIM, THOPPIL VEEDU, COLLEGE JUNCTION, VAALICODE, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SUNITHA.N., D/O. MOHAMMED KASSIM, AGED 55 YEARS, THOPPIL VEEDU, COLLEGE JUNCTION, VAALICODE, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695541. BY ADVS. S.S.ARAVIND TINU ABRAHAM RESPONDENT S / PETITIONER/PETITIONER : 1 SONIYA LATHEEFA, AGED 40 YEARS D/O. SAIFUDHEEN, RESIDING AT 8, TC 20/11 90(1), MELARANOOR, KUNNATHU LANE, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695002. 2 DIYA, AGED 15 YEARS, D/O. SONIYA LATHEEFA, RESIDING AT 8, TC 20/11 90(1), MELARANOOR, 2025:KER:27507 OP (FC) NO. 183 OF 2025 -2- KUNNATHU LANE, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695002. REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER, PIN – 695002. 3 SAMAR, D/O. SONIYA LATHEEFA, RESIDING AT 8, TC 20/11 90(1), MELARANOOR, KUNNATHU LANE, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695002. REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER, PIN – 695002. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:27507 OP (FC) NO. 183 OF 2025 -3- JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J. The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 order of the learned Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, asserting that the direction therein - that he should pay Rs.20,000/- to the 2nd respondent and Rs.25,000/- to the 3rd respondent (whom he concedes to be his children) - is illegal and unlawful because, he is already paying Rs.40,000/- to both of them voluntarily. 2. Sri.S.S.Aravind – learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that Ext.P8 order is unnecessary, when his client is paying the maintenance without default; and that such a course, without conducting an inquiry whether he had committed any default, is untenable. He, however, conceded, to a pointed question from 2025:KER:27507 OP (FC) NO. 183 OF 2025 -4- this Court, that his client has only been asked to pay Rs.5,000/- in addition to what he is voluntarily paying; but argued that this was unnecessary because the sum he was honouring was already sufficient. 3. We are afraid that we cannot find favour with the challenge to Ext.P8 at this stage because, the petitioner himself admits that he is paying Rs.40,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the children. He has now been asked to pay only Rs.45,000/-; and, as indicated above, this amounts only to Rs.5,000/- per month extra, and that too from the date of petition. 4. When the petitioner does not have a case that he is not earning enough and that he is paying Rs.40,000/- per month for the maintenance of the children, we fail to understand why he should have approached this 2025:KER:27507 OP (FC) NO. 183 OF 2025 -5- Court in this manner. We gather he has done so since he fears that he will now be bound by a court order, rather than by a voluntary action of making payment of maintenance. However, this is inevitable because the Court was bound to consider the application of the respondents, wherein, the maintenance claim was Rs.2,50,000/- on the assertion that the petitioner is earning Rs.10,00,000/- per month. The Court was certainly obligated to consider such application, which it has done, in our view, correctly; and hence the argument of the petitioner that the impugned order could have been issued only after an enquiry as to if the petitioner was making payment voluntarily could be of no consequence. In the afore circumstances, we dismiss this Original Petition, confirming Ext.P8; 2025:KER:27507 OP (FC) NO. 183 OF 2025 -6- however, clarifying that the amount ordered to be paid under it shall be after deduction of the amounts, if any, he has already paid in the past. Needless to say, our observations herein are only confined to our examination of the validity of the impugned order and shall not trammel or fetter the learned Family Court when it proceeds to decide the matter on its merits in due course. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- M.B.SNEHALATHA akv JUDGE 2025:KER:27507 OP (FC) NO. 183 OF 2025 -7- APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 183/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT -P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO.2556/2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 6-12-2023 EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.P NO.2556/2023 BEFORE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 1- 11-2024 EXHIBIT -P3 TRUE COPY OF ASSET AND LIABILITIES STATEMENT DATED 17-1-2025 EXHIBIT -P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY DECLARATION DATED 27/05/2017 EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY DECLARATION DATED 10/08/2018 EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.4 OF 2023 IN OP NO.2556/2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 7-12-2023 EXHIBIT-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN IA NO.4 OF 2023IN OP NO.2556/2023 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.4 OF 2023 IN O.P. 2556/2023 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 19-2-2025