Dismissed

Rajan v. Usha

Kerala HC16 Aug 2013Mat.Appeal/546/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this matrimonial appeal, the appellant challenged an order by the Family Court directing him to pay maintenance to his separated wife and minor children. He argued she had resources and he was unemployed; however, evidence showed he was employed as a security guard. The High Court rejected the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Family Court's order directing maintenance payment to the wife and children.

Rajan Vs Usha — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/25TH SRAVANA, 1935

¶6

Mat.Appeal.No. 546 of 2013 ()

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 119/2013 OF FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA DATED 12.06.2013

¶8

APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:

¶9

RAJAN, AGED 46 YEARS S/O. SREEDHARAN, KUMPAZHATHARAYIL VEEDU THEKKUMMURI KIZHAKKU, S.R.P. MARKET.P.O. THAZHAVA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 & 2ND RESPONDENT:

¶12

1. USHA

¶13

D/O. SARAWATHY, KANNAMKARA PADEETTATHIL VEEDU THEKKUMMURI KIZHAKKU, S.R.P. MARKET P.O. THAZHAVA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY.

¶14

2. PINKY, AGED 14 YEARS (MINOR), D/O. SARASWATHY, DO-DO-

¶15

3. RAHUL RAJ, AGED 10 YEARS (MINOR), D/O. SARASWATHY, DO-

¶16

4. POST MASTER SRP MARKET P.O., THAZHAVA VILLAGE KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM.

¶17

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

shg/

¶19

ANTONY DOMINIC & P.D. RAJAN, JJ.

¶20

Mat. Appeal No.546 of 2013

¶21

Dated this the 16^th day of August, 2013

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

ANTONY DOMINIC,J.

¶24

The petitioner challenges order passed by the Family Court, Chavara in O.P.No.119/2013. The O.P. was filed by respondents 1 to 3 seeking maintenance from the petitioner. By the order impugned, the Family Court allowed the claim and directed the appellant to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- to the 1^st respondent and Rs.1,500/- each to respondents 2 and 3, per month. It is aggrieved by the direction to the extent it requires the appellant to pay maintenance to the wife that the appeal has been filed.

¶25

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that although the appellant has not disputed his liability insofar as the children are concerned, as far as payment to the wife is concerned, he says that she is a person with resources and is residing separately without any justifiable cause. He also contended that he is unemployed and that with the limited income, he has to maintain himself and his aged parents.

¶26

However, the status of the 1^st respondent as his wife is

¶27

Mat. AppealNo.546/13 2

¶28

undisputed. Reading of the order shows that evidence before the Family Court proved that the appellant is a person, who is working as Security Guard in the Amrutha Engineering College, earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The judgment also makes reference to the interest that the appellant earns and the other income that the appellant has. It was taking note of these evidence and also his liability to maintain his wife that the Family Court passed the order impugned.

¶29

On the evidence available, we are not inclined to think

¶30

that the finding of the Family Court suffers from any illegality, justifying interference in this appeal.

¶31

Mat. Appeal will stand dismissed.

¶32

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶33

P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.

¶34

acd

¶35

Mat. AppealNo.546/13 3

¶36

Mat. AppealNo.546/13 4

Rajan v. Usha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan v. Usha

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

R.Vijayan Vs Sajani

Bhaskaran Satheish Vs Sheeba.P.

Hanan U Vs Muhammes Shafeeque

P.v.Prakash Vs R.Bindu

Praem Alex George Vattakattcherry Vs Susan Job Pothanikat @ Ninu Job

Reena Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police