Whether court can direct husband to pay interest if payment of maintenance amount is delayed?
The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed
out that the petitioner had to spend an amount of
2,31,000/- towards her medical treatments for renal
problems. Medical bills are also produced. The learned
counsel for the counter petitioner has challenged the
veracity of the said medical bills. In such case, at this stage
when this Court is exercising its jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C. it is not fair and proper for this Court to decide
the claim of the amount allegedly spent as treatment
expenses. Such a question has to be decided by the trial
court. As far as the other amounts are concerned, this Court
is of the view that the same need not be interfered with. It is
true that in the present social scenario it may not be
possible for the petitioner to pull on with a meagre amount
of 3,000/- per month as maintenance. At the same time, it
has to be noted that the counter petitioner has to pay such
amount for 10 years as lump sum. It has been pointed out
that so far the counter petitioner has paid an amount of
2,05,000/- only, out of the amount of 3,60,000/-. It is aout that the petitioner had to spend an amount of
2,31,000/- towards her medical treatments for renal
problems. Medical bills are also produced. The learned
counsel for the counter petitioner has challenged the
veracity of the said medical bills. In such case, at this stage
when this Court is exercising its jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C. it is not fair and proper for this Court to decide
the claim of the amount allegedly spent as treatment
expenses. Such a question has to be decided by the trial
court. As far as the other amounts are concerned, this Court
is of the view that the same need not be interfered with. It is
true that in the present social scenario it may not be
possible for the petitioner to pull on with a meagre amount
of 3,000/- per month as maintenance. At the same time, it
has to be noted that the counter petitioner has to pay such
amount for 10 years as lump sum. It has been pointed out
that so far the counter petitioner has paid an amount of
hard reality that the said amount which the counter
petitioner ought to have paid during the period of iddat has
not been paid so far. In such a case, normally the courts
have to charge interest also on such amount for delayed
payment. At the same time, it seems that there is no such
claim forwarded by the petitioner so far. Whatever it is, the
counter petitioner is directed to pay the balance amount of
1,55,000/- within two months from today to the petitioner,
failing which, the petitioner would be entitled to recover the
said amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
22ND DAY OF JULY 2015
Crl.MC.No. 2121 of 2009
ABBAS, S/O.MAMMU,
V
SOUDA K.V., D/O.KUNJIMON,
Citation:2016 CRLJ 3142 kerala
https://www.lawweb.in/2016/10/whether-court-can-direct-husband-to-pay.html
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
22ND DAY OF JULY 2015
Crl.MC.No. 2121 of 2009
ABBAS, S/O.MAMMU,
V
SOUDA K.V., D/O.KUNJIMON,
Citation:2016 CRLJ 3142 kerala
https://www.lawweb.in/2016/10/whether-court-can-direct-husband-to-pay.html
