Partly allowed

C.J.Antony v. Sheena Antony & Another

Kerala HC18 Sept 2012Mat.Appeal/874/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of matrimonial appeals highlighting a dispute over maintenance rates. Distinguishing the lower Court's fixation of two different rates, the Court held the earlier rate was too low, increased monthly maintenance for the wife and child, and approved related requests regarding security and property attachments.

What did the court decide?

Monthly maintenance increased to Rs.6000/- for wife and Rs.4000/- for son from application date; requests for fixed deposit and lifting of attachment permitted with direction to Family Court for furth

C.J.Antony Vs Sheena Antony & Another — 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 & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/27TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

Mat.Appeal.No. 874 of 2008 ( ) -----------------------------OP.655/2002 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM COMMONLY TRIED ALONG WITH O.P.1198/03)

¶6

APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER:

¶7

C.J.ANTONY, AGED 45 YEARS,

¶8

S/O.LATE JOHN, 40/1456, CHOOLACKAL HOUSE

¶9

MARKET ROAD, KOCHI - 11.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS:

¶12

SHEENA ANTONY, W/O.C.J.ANTONY, AGED 30 YEARS, C/O.T.G.FRANCIS, SREEVILAS FLAT

¶13

T.R.SUKUMARAN NAIR ROAD, PERUMTHANNY

¶14

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 8.

¶15

ARUN CHOOLACKAL, AGED 6 YEARS, C/O.T.G.FRANCIS, SREEVILAS FLAT

¶16

T.R.SUKUMARAN NAIR ROAD, PERUMTHANNY

¶17

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 8.

¶18

R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR

¶19

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-09-2012, ALONG WITH MA. 188/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &

¶21

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶22

Mat. Appeal Nos. 874 of 2008 & 188 of 2009

¶23

Dated this the 18^th day of September, 2012

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

¶26

The husband as well as the wife and child − both parties − are aggrieved by the order of maintenance passed in favour of the wife and the child against the father/husband. Mat. Appeal No.188 of 2009 is the appeal preferred by the wife and the child and Mat. Appeal No.874 of 2008 is the appeal preferred by the husband/father. The wife and the child (the only child, a son) claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- for the wife and Rs. 5000/- for the child. The Family Court, after trial, has directed payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.2000/- per month respectively to the wife and the child from the date of the original petition till the date of the order and thereafter at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month to the wife and

¶27

[Mat.Appeal Nos.874 /08 &188/09] 2

¶28

Rs.3000/- per month to the child. The grounds raised in the appeal preferred by the wife and the child that the amount presently awarded is too low considering the financial position of the husband, who is the father of the child, whereas the ground raised in Mat. Appeal No. 874 of 2008 is that the rate presently fixed is excessive and is highly disproportionate with the income of the husband father.

¶29

Sri. S.P.Chaly, learned counsel for the appellant in Mat. Appeal No.874 of 2008 and Sri. Thoufeeq Ahamed, learned counsel for the appellant in Mat. Appeal No.188 of 2009 would address very appealing submissions before us based on the grounds raised in the respective appeal memoranda. Both of them assailed the impugned order on the basis of the respective grounds. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions addressed at the Bar. We have carefully read through the impugned order. We have had a quick glance at the evidence which consisted of the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3, RWs.1 and 2 and documents A1 and B1 to B7 and C1. We are of the view, having regard to the evidence which came on record that the rate presently fixed by the Family Court is on the lower side. We are also not inclined to approve the action of the Family

¶30

[Mat.Appeal Nos.874 /08 &188/09] 3

¶31

Court in having fixed two rates, one for pendente lite period and another for future period. Modifying the impugned order, we direct the respondent in Mat. Appeal No.188 of 2009 to pay monthly maintenance to the first appellant in that appeal, his wife, and the second appellant in that appeal, his son, respectively at the rate of Rs.6000/- and Rs.4000/- from the date of application.

¶32

Mr.S.P.Chaly learned counsel for the appellant in Mat.Appeal No.874/2008 would now make two requests. His first request was that his client be permitted to deposit a lump sum amount as two fixed deposits with instructions to the bankers to pay the interest accrued from them regularly to respondents 1 and 2. The learned counsel submitted that the amount to be deposited will be sufficiently large so as to ensure that interest from that deposit will be more than Rs.6000/- and Rs.4000/presently ordered by this court.

¶33

Another request made by Mr. Chaly was that once amounts are deposited as suggested above, the order of attachment issued by the Family court presently subsisting in respect of the immovable properties, which belong in common to

¶34

[Mat.Appeal Nos.874 /08 &188/09]

¶35

¶36

the appellant and his siblings, be lifted lest hardship should be occasioned not only to the appellant but also to his siblings.

¶37

Both the requests made by Mr.Chaly are in our opinion

¶38

reasonable. Notwithstanding this judgment of ours, we permit the appellant in Mat.Appeal No.874/2008 to move the Family Court for appropriate directions in that regard. If any application is filed by the appellant before the Family Court, the Family Court will invite objections to that application from respondents 1 and 2 and take a correct decision keeping in mind our opinion that the requests made by Mr.Chaly on behalf of the appellant before us

¶39

appears to be reasonable.

¶40

Both the appeals are disposed of.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶45

krs/dpk

¶46

//True Copy //

C.J.Antony v. Sheena Antony & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.J.Antony v. Sheena Antony & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopalakrishnan Vs Ambujam

M.Praveena Vs Narayanai Ammmal

P.S.Jameela Vs Muhammed Basheer

Bindu Thomas Vs Thomaskutty Sebastian

Suveesh Vs Renuka

N.Rajesh Vs P.v.Purushothaman