Bombay High Court Awards Rs. 5 Lakh for Illegal Arrest, Orders Action Against Police, Magistrate  ||  Bombay High Court Sets Aside FIR Against Pune College Staff Over Murud Beach Tragedy  ||  Bombay High Court Proposes Forfeiting Rehab Homes of Slum Dwellers Dumping Garbage on Roads  ||  J&K&L High Court Sets Aside Rs. 10K Cost on Senior Advocate, Says Heated Exchanges are Common  ||  Gujarat HC Quashes Cruelty FIR Against Mother-in-Law as Complainant’s Earlier Marriage Subsisted  ||  Supreme Court Stays Kerala FIR Probe Against Ex-CM Pinarayi Vijayan, Kin for 10 Days  ||  Supreme Court: Courts Can Intervene When Free and Fair Elections are Tainted by Illegal Means  ||  Delhi HC: CJP Leaders Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka Withdraw Plea Against Judicial Custody  ||  Bombay HC Fines Junior Advocate Rs. 25K, Clerk Rs. 10K for Unauthorised Court Video Recording  ||  Bombay HC Expresses Concern as Mumbai Surpasses Delhi in Pollution Levels    

S.S. Biju Vs. Deepa R. and Ors. - (High Court of Kerala) (06 Mar 2019)

Court can impose a condition ordering payment of part of decree amount while exercising power under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC

MANU/KE/0679/2019

Family

The challenge involved in present appeal is that, the Family Court was not justified in having ordered payment of part of the decree amount, when his liability is yet to be finally determined in the Original Petition. According to learned counsel for the Appellant, Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) does not extent to the Court any power to order payment of any portion of the decree amount, other than to impose reasonable cost on the applicant as a condition for setting aside ex parte decree. The only question for consideration, is whether the condition imposed by the court below was harsh, unreasonable or onerous causing prejudice to the Appellant.

Law does not seem to prohibit the Court from imposing a condition ordering payment of part of the decree amount while exercising power under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC. But the court has to be cautious enough to notice that the condition imposed on the party does not work out to be harsh and onerous to him. So far as this case is concerned, there is no dispute on marital relationship.

The sole ground on which liability for maintenance is disowned is that, the Appellant has been looking after the wife and children even when the litigation against him was pending. When the spousal relationship stands admitted, it naturally follows that the husband-cum-father has undeniable liability to maintain the wife and children under law.

The amount fixed by the impugned orders for payment to the Respondent appears to be quite reasonable. It is very difficult to assume that, the Court below has been harsh nor it imposed a condition which is onerous to the Appellant. The orders therefore, are liable only to be confirmed. In the result, impugned orders are sustained subject to the Appellant making payment of Rs. 50,000 to the Respondents within one month.

Tags : MAINTENANCE   LIABILITY   INTERIM MEASURE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved