Dismissed

Chandran @ Chandrasekharan v. Girija

Kerala HC22 May 2012RPFC/99/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition regarding an order enhancing maintenance, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the petition. The Court found no illegality in the amount fixed, held the Family Court had proper jurisdiction, and noted the petitioner failed to challenge findings on the wife's inability to maintain herself.

What did the court decide?

Revision Petition dismissed; impugned order of Family Court maintaining Rs. 2,000/month upwardly maintained.

Chandran @ Chandrasekharan Vs Girija — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2012/1ST JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

RPFC.No. 99 of 2012 () ---------------------IN MC.303/2009 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD

¶6

REVISION PETITIONER(S):

¶7

CHANDRAN @ CHANDRASEKHARAN S/O.GOVINDAN,TICKET EXAMINER CONNOOR RAILWAY STATION RESIDING AT 18C RAILWAY QUARTERS, OOTTY, TAMILNADU.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAJAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. GIRIJA W/O.G.CHANDRAN, THERUPARAMBIL HOUSE, METTUPALAYAM MELEPURAM P.O, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD KERALA STATE, PIN 678 731.

¶11

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR

¶13

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶16

R.P. (FC) No. 99 of 2012

¶17

Dated this the 22^nd day of May, 2012

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 19.01.2012, of the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C. No. 303/2009. The petitioner herein was the counter petitioner therein and the petitioner therein is his wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 19.08.1983 and two children were born in their wedlock. Admittedly the younger daughter is living with the wife, the 1^st respondent herein. The impugned order was passed on a petition filed under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner herein is working as Ticket Examiner in Southern Railway. Going by his latest salary certificate, he is drawing a monthly salary of Rs.19,413/-. The petitioner and the daughters born in the wedlock were being paid Rs.700/- per month towards monthly maintenance. Taking into account all the relevant aspects and factors the Family Court enhanced the monthly maintenance of the first respondent herein from Rs.700/- to Rs.2,000/-. The said amount was directed to be paid from 19.07.2009 onwards.

¶20

It is apposite to note in the context of the claim and

¶21

R.P. (FC) No. 99 of 2012

¶22

¶23

contentions of the petitioner that despite a specific finding to the effect that the first respondent herein was unable to maintain herself no challenge was raised by the petitioner against the same. In the impugned order it has been held as hereunder:-

¶24

“He also admitted that petitioner has no income of her own and she has no properties also. So without giving maintenance by him she cannot live. As I stated earlier his leave salary certificate produced by him would show his gross salary as Rs.19,413/-.”

¶25

There is absolute absence of any challenge against the conclusions and findings in respect of the crucial aspect of 'the first respondents ability to maintain herself' in this revision petition. The sole challenge made by the revision petitioner is against the findings of the family court relating its jurisdiction. Paragraph 10 of the order dealt with the issue of jurisdiction. Relying on a decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Darshan Kumari V. Surinder Kumar reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 44 holding that for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the Magistrate under Section 125 Cr.P.C. a permanent residence is not required and even temporary residence so long as it is not casual would be sufficient for the family court to proceed to consider the issue. Evidently, on such consideration it was found

¶26

R.P. (FC) No. 99 of 2012

¶27

¶28

that the court has jurisdiction based on the facts obtained in this case. I do not find any illegality or error in the said finding warranting interference.

¶29

As already noticed that the petitioner is a Ticket Examiner under the Southern Railway and evidently his gross salary is Rs.19,413/-. Considering the fact that the 1^st respondent, the petitioner before the Family Court, is an unemployed lady and the younger daughter born in her wedlock with the revision petitioner, is living with her, I am unable to uphold the contention of the petitioner that the amount now ordered to be paid, on enhancement, is exorbitant. The amount awarded is only Rs.2,000/-. There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Family Court. In the said circumstances the impugned order invites no interference and accordingly this Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶30

Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE

¶31

/True copy/

¶32

P. A. to Judge

¶33

Chandran @ Chandrasekharan v. Girija

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandran @ Chandrasekharan v. Girija

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sateesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Bindhu Vs State of Kerala

Anish Vs State of Kerala

George P.Samuel Vs State of Kerala

M.v.Varghese Vs K.G.Mohanlal, Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Jijo Vs Mathew