Partly allowed

B.Prasannadas v. Jayasree

Kerala HC7 Nov 2012Mat.Appeal/381/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the matrimonial appeal on the limited extent of reducing the monthly rate of past maintenance from Rs. 750 to Rs. 700 per mensem for thirty-six months, finding the original rate slightly on the higher side.

What did the court decide?

The monthly rate of past maintenance reduced from Rs. 750 to Rs. 700 per mensem for thirty-six months; the impugned order modified accordingly.

B.Prasannadas Vs Jayasree — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

¶4

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/16TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶7

Mat.Appeal.No. 381 of 2012 (C)

¶8

OP.693/2011 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE

¶9

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

¶10

B.PRASANNADAS @ MANU, S/O LATE GOVINDAN, KANJIRATHINGAL PARAMBU A.R. CAMP ROAD VELLIMADUKUNNU POST KOZHIKODE.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN

¶12

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶13

JAYASREE

¶14

D/O LATE VASU, SREEPADAM, ATHANIKKAL BEACH WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE-673001

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM

¶16

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶18

-----------------------------------------------Mat. Appeal No.381 of 2012

¶19

Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2012

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

¶22

This appeal is directed against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in OP.693/11 which was an Original Petition under Section 18(1)(1) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Under the impugned order as against the respondent's claim for the award of past maintenance at the rate of 5,000/- per mensem for thirty six months, the Family Court has awarded past maintenance at the rate of 750/- per mensem for thirty six months.

¶23

We have heard the submissions of the learned

¶24

counsel for the appellant and those of the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶25

Even though the appendix to the judgment indicates

¶26

Mat. Appeal No.381 of 2012

¶27

-2-

¶28

that not even oral evidence was adduced by either party before the Family Court it was common submission of both sides before us that before the Family Court the evidence consisted of the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 on the side of the respondent and that of RW1 and Exts.B1 and B1 series of documents. Our attention was drawn by counsel to the above evidence which we gather was adduced by the parties in another litigation between the same parties but agreed to

¶29

by the parties to be considered by the Family Court for the purpose of the present case.

¶30

Having appreciated the submissions addressed at the Bar and made a survey of the evidence to which our attention was drawn, we feel that the rate of 750/- per mensem presently fixed is slightly on the higher side. We reduce the above rate to 700/- per mensem. The impugned order stands modified only to the above extent. The appeal

¶31

-3-

¶32

Mat. Appeal No.381 of 2012

¶33

stands allowed to the limited extent of reducing the monthly rate of past maintenance from 750/- to 700/-. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

¶34

Sd/PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶35

Sd/BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE

¶36

kns/-

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

P.A. TO JUDGE

B.Prasannadas v. Jayasree

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Prasannadas v. Jayasree

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

Suthin S Vs the Director General of Police

V.Txavier Vs State of Kerala

S.B.Sunil Kumar Vs B.Raji

Muhammed Shafi Vs Bushra

K. Krishnakumar Vs Sulabhakumari

Sheeja Vs State of Kerala