Partly allowed

Beona v. Felix Miranda

Kerala HC22 Jun 2009WP(C)/15265/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged the Family Court's order granting insufficient interim maintenance to an adult daughter. The High Court allowed the petition in part, set aside the impugned order for failure to consider submitted expenses, directed the lower court to adjudicate specific education costs, and ordered remaining arrears to be paid immediately.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Family Court directed to dispose of matter afresh within 6 months; Respondent ordered to pay balance arrears of Rs. 25,000 forthwith.

Beona Vs Felix Miranda — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI

¶6

MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931

¶7

WP(C).No. 15265 of 2009(R)

¶8

-------------------------OP.245/2008 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM

¶9

PETITIONER: --------------MISS.BEONA, AGED 20 YEARS, D/O.FELIX MIRANDA, T.C.NO.6/329, KARIMANKULAM ROAD, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT #212, MARUTHY LAYOUT, HENNUR, CROSS 9TH MAIN, IITH CROSS, HBR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 043.

¶10

BY ADV. DR.SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPPILLY SRI.M.P.RAJU SRI.T.C.DIPIN RESPONDENT(S:

¶11

--------------1. FELIX MIRANDA, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.MICHEAL MIRANDA, PERMANENT ADDRESS `SHANTI BHAVAN', VETTUCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND PRESENTLY EMPLOYED AT SHARJAH AND HAVING THE ADDRESS P.O.BOX NO. 430, SHARJAH, UAE.

¶12

JUSTINA TEDDY, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O.C.S.TEDDY, RESIDING AT MRITHYUNJAYA, HOLISTIC CENTER, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 003.

¶13

BIBITHA FELIX, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.FELIX MIRANDA, T.C.NO. 6/329, KARIMANKULAM ROAD, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT 447, 5TH MAIN ROAD, HRBR LAYOUT, 2ND BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 043.

¶14

ADV. SRI.KURIAN ANTONY EDASSERY FOR R2 SMT.ANN EMIL JOSEPH FOR R2

¶15

SMT.ANNIE GEORGE FOR R3

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.

¶18

-------------------------------------------------W.P.(C)No.15265 OF 2009

¶19

-----------------------------------------------------

¶20

DATED THIS THE 22^nd DAY OF JUNE, 2009

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Basant, J.

¶23

The adult child of the first respondent is the petitioner in this Writ Petition. First respondent is her father. Respondents 2 and 3 are her mother and sister and admittedly they are unnecessary parties to this proceedings.

¶24

The petitioner has filed the O.P. claiming amounts from her father, the first respondent. She had claimed interim maintenance and by the impugned order, the court below directed payment of an amount of Rs.5,000/- per mensem. The petitioner in this Writ Petition challenges the said order as perverse and totally insufficient to meet the maintenance requirements of the petitioner.

¶25

Before coming to the claim for interim maintenance allowed under Exhibit P4 order, it may be apposite to refer to the other reliefs claimed. The reliefs claimed are extracted below.

¶26

(a) To direct the Family Court at Thiruvananthapuram to expedite the proceedings in

¶27

W.P.(C)No.15265/08

¶28

-2-

¶29

O.P.No.245/08 and also to set aside the impugned order in I.A.No.1284/08 in O.P.No.245/08 dated

¶30

11.3.2009 and allow the prayers in Exhibit P2 interlocutory application taking into consideration the supervening events and in terms of the calculation shown herein above.

¶31

(b) to direct the 1^st respondent to pay Rs.1,42,500/- (One lakh forty two thousand and five hundred rupees) to the petitioner to pursue a course in M.Sc.Forensic Science in Amity University Campus, Sector 125, Noida – 201303, U.P.

¶32

(c) to grant such other and further reliefs which in the circumstances of the case may warrant as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant.

¶33

We are satisfied that the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram must be directed to dispose of O.P.No.245/08 at the earliest. There is a prayer to issue an interim direction to the first respondent to pay an amount of Rs.1,42,500/- as interim maintenance for the future to enable the petitioner to pursue her course in the M.Sc.Forensic Science at Noida, U.P. That claim has not been made before the

¶34

W.P.(C)No.15265/08

¶35

-3-

¶36

Family Court. We are satisfied that the petitioner can be directed to make that claim before the Family Court. When such a claim is staked, the Family Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law expeditiously.

¶37

What survives is only the claim for interim maintenance allowed in part under Exhibit P4 order. That order directs the first respondent to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/per mensem from the date of the petition. The petition is filed in March, 2008 and it was pointed out that interim maintenance for 15 months is due by now (June, 2009) would work out to an amount of Rs.75,000/-. Accepting that order without demur, an amount of Rs.50,000/- has been deposited before the court below on 20.6.2009, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent. We direct the first respondent to pay the balance amount of Rs.25,000/- within a period of 30 days from this date and continue to make such deposits until further orders are passed by the Family Court. All such amounts deposited shall forthwith be released to the petitioner herein, including the amounts already deposited.

¶38

W.P.(C)No.15265/08

¶39

-4-

¶40

That takes us to the challenge raised against Exhibit P4

¶41

order. Interim maintenance is claimed as per the details shown

¶42

below.

¶43

Tuition fees : Rs.15,500/-(for each Semester -6 months) 2. Room rent : Rs.2,800/- (per month.) 3. Expenses for food : Rs.5,000/- (per month.) 4. Expenses for project work : Rs.4,000/- (per month.)

¶44

For purchasing dress : Rs.15,000/- (in all)

¶45

The court below has directed payment of only Rs.5,000/- per mensem. We note that the court below has not properly applied its mind in arriving at this figure of Rs.5,000/-. It is submitted before us that relevant materials have been placed before the Family Court. The amount of Rs.5,000/- has been arrived at without specific reference to these materials. We are satisfied that the impugned order can be set aside and the court below can be directed to dispose of the matter afresh after specifically adverting to the above claims and the documents/materials produced in support of such claims. Needless to say, the parties shall be

¶46

W.P.(C)No.15265/08

¶47

-5-

¶48

permitted to produce appropriate further evidence also having a

¶49

bearing on the question.

¶50

In the result:

¶51

(a) this Writ petition is allowed in part.

¶52

(b) the court below is directed to dispose of O.P.No.245/08 as expeditiously as possible – at

¶53

any rate, within a period of six months from today.

¶54

(c) the first respondent shall forthwith pay a further amount of Rs.25,000/- towards maintenance claimed and shall continue to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month as agreed. Such amounts as also the amount of Rs.50,000/- already deposited on 20.6.2009 shall be released forthwith to the petitioner herein and the same shall be credited to the amounts which may ultimately be found payable in I.A.No.1284/08.

¶55

(d) the impugned order Exhibit P4 is set aside and

¶56

W.P.(C)No.15265/08

¶57

-6-

¶58

the Family Court is directed to dispose of I.A.No.1284/08 as expeditiously as possible –

¶59

at any rate before 31.7.2009. Both parties shall be at liberty to produce whatever further material that they want to produce before the Family Court, within a period of 10 days from this date.

¶60

(e) the claim made as per prayer (b) in this petition can be staked before the Family Court by the petitioner and appropriate orders on such application also shall be passed by the Family Court in accordance with law, after hearing the first respondent, expeditiously.

¶61

R.BASANT, JUDGE.

¶62

M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.

¶63

dsn

Beona v. Felix Miranda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beona v. Felix Miranda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopalakrishnan Vs Maya

Gopalakrishnan Vs Maya

T.D. Kuriakose Vs M.J. Jigili

Sajan and Others Vs Remya

Vasukuttan Nair Vs S.Sathyseelan

Jaison K.K. Vs Sherly P.P