The Kerala High Court in the case Manikandan v. Raveena observed and has directed all Family Court judges to release the amount deposited towards arrears of maintenance at the earliest, under the orders of the High Court or otherwise.
The Single Judge Bench headed by Justice A. Badharudeen’s observed that when the arrears of maintenance being deposited before the Family Courts in obedience to the order or interim order or otherwise, the Family Courts are reluctant to release the amount which is being deposited to the claimants and unwantedly insist for orders from this Court to release the amount. The court observed that it appears to be bad practice which is detrimental to the interest of the claimants and it is being the duty of the Family Courts to release the amount deposited within no time to the respondents, so as the same helps them for their survival.
Further, the court observed and has issued the aforementioned direction noting that this was the practice in almost all the Family Courts.
Therefore, the court directed that when the amounts are being deposited and being the part of arrears of maintenance, the Family Court shall immediately secure the presence of the claimant/claimants, after they contacted through their lawyers or on the telephone numbers of the claimants, if available in the office, and the same shall release the amount directly to the parties, without effecting deposit of the same in the treasury an din such a way the payment of the amount is not feasible, despite of having being adopted the aforementioned procedures, the amount can then be deposited in accordance with the stated law.
The court made it specifically clear that the amount, if any, which is being deposited towards arrears of maintenance, with rider not to release the amount and such amount alone shall not be released in view of the given direction.
In the present case, the court was considering a revision petition filed against the order of Family Court, Tirur, Malappuram. It was observed that during the hearing, while it was informed by the counsels for the petitioner that the deposit had been affected as per the orders of the Court which fact was not disputed by the respondent and the latter added that the same was objected by the revision petitioner, when the petition was filed before the Family Court to get the amount released.
Accordingly, the court directed the registry to forward a copy of the order to the Family Court concerned within 7 days for information and with direction to comply the same without fail. It has also directed the copy of order to be forwarded to all the District Bar Associations in the State for their information and with request to forward the same to the Bar Associations in sub centres and Mofusil centres for information.
The counsels appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner, Advocates Gouri Meempat, Deepa Narayanan, K. Sujai Sathian and Sangeetha Sreekumar. Advocates K.R. Vinod and M.S. Letha represented the respondent in the revision petitioner.
