Dismissed

Raju v. Akshara, Minor Rep. by Mother Rathika

Kerala HC14 Feb 2017Mat.Appeal/329/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this matrimonial appeal, the appellant father challenged the Family Court's order fixing maintenance for his minor daughter. The High Court examined evidence regarding the appellant's income and the child's needs, held the fixed amount was not excessive, and dismissed the appeal upholding the lower court's maintenance award.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the order of the Family Court fixing monthly maintenance for the minor child was upheld.

Raju Vs Akshara, Minor Rep. by Mother Rathika — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/25TH MAGHA, 1938

¶5

Mat.Appeal.No. 329 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP 1009/2012 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR DATED 1106-2015

¶7

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

¶8

RAJU, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.UNNIKRISAHNAN,VELLIKULANGARA VILLAGE AND DESOM,MUKUNDAPURAM THALUK,THRISUR DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.VISHNUPRASAD NAIR SRI.VINAY RAMDAS

¶10

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶11

AKSHARA, (MINOR D-O-B 9/9/2003) D/O.RAJU AND RATHIKA,REP. BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER RATHIKA AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.PONNANCHATHU PARAMESHWARAN, NETTISERY VILLAGE AND DESOM TRICHUR

¶12

R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.PREMCHAND

¶13

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

A.M. SHAFFIQUE & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶15

=========================== Mat.Appeal No. 329 of 2016

¶16

==================

¶17

Dated this, the 14^th day of February, 2017

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Ramakrishnan, J.

¶20

Respondent in OP No.1009/2002 on the file of Family court, Thrissur is the appellant herein. OP is filed before the Court below by the minor child through her mother seeking for past and future maintenance from the appellant, who is the father. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. According to the petitioner in the OP, she was deserted by the appellant for a quite long time and when she filed an application before the Magistrate Court seeking maintenance, the matter was settled agreeing to pay maintenance @500/- to the minor child, but he did not pay the same as well. He is engaged in arranging laboratories of schools and getting a monthly income of not less than 50,000/per month. He is also taking classes and getting income. He is not

¶21

Mat.Appeal No.329/16

¶22

-:2:-

¶23

paying any maintenance from 5/3/2004 onwards. So the claim was made at the rate of `6,000/- per month towards past and future maintenance, and that the child was studying in 4^th standard, apart from expenses for maintenance, the school expenses should also be met by the appellant herein.

¶24

Appellant, who is the respondent in the Court below entered appearance and filed counter admitting the marriage and birth of the child. According to him, a document has been executed whereby they have separated and he had remarried also. Joint petition for divorce was filed and it was granted. An amount of 3 lakhs was paid to the mother of the child as per the settlement and he denied the allegation that he is getting more than 50,000/- per month. Further, the mother is having her own job and is getting good salary and so he is not liable to pay maintenance. He prayed for dismissal of the application.

¶25

The mother of the respondent was examined as PW1 and the appellant himself was examined as RW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the respondent. After considering the evidence on record, the Court below come to the conclusion

¶26

Mat.Appeal No.329/16

¶27

-:3:-

¶28

that the appellant is having capacity to pay maintenance and he is liable to pay maintenance to the child and fixed the monthly maintenance @3,000/- for past maintenance for 36 months and @4,000/- from the date of petition as future maintenance and also directed to pay past maintenance with interest @6% from the date of order till realisation. This order is being challenged by the appellant.

¶29

Heard Sri.Vishnuprasad Nair, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.M.Premchand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶30

According to the counsel for the appellant, the amount awarded is excessive and he is incapable of paying the amount.

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the Court below has considered all the aspects and rightly awarded maintenance, which does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.

¶32

The marriage between the mother of the child and the paternity of the child are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that they are now residing separately and the child is with the

¶33

Mat.Appeal No.329/16

¶34

-:4:-

¶35

mother. The fact that there was a maintenance case filed earlier before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court and that was settled agreeing to pay maintenance @500/- per month to the child was also not disputed. But, according to the mother of the respondent, that maintenance was not paid. The child is studying in 4<sup>th</sup> Standard. The mother is not able to meet both the ends for maintaining the child. The fact is that the appellant is a Lab Technician and according to him, he was getting 400/- per day and is getting only 3 days of work. But the Court below on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that it cannot be believed and the Court below on careful appreciation of evidence fixed the monthly income of the appellant as 20,000/- and directed to pay 3,000/- per month as past maintenance for 36 months and `4,000/- per month as future maintenance from the date of petition. The past maintenance was directed to be paid with 6% interest.

¶36

On appreciation of evidence, we do not think that the amount fixed by the Court below as maintenance considering the status of the parties and cost of living is said to be harsh or

¶37

Mat.Appeal No.329/16

¶38

excessive warranting interference at the hands of this Court. Being a father, he has got an obligation to maintain the child and provide proper maintenance for the welfare of the child.

¶39

So, considering the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court below and the appeal lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶40

Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶43

Rp14/2/2017

¶44

//True Copy//

¶45

P.S to Judge

Raju v. Akshara, Minor Rep. by Mother Rathika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju v. Akshara, Minor Rep. by Mother Rathika

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

Sheeja D/O. Velayudhan Vs K.P.Suresh

P.R.Neethumol Vs Satheesan

Bijinabal Vs Suveesh

R.Thankappan Vs Jayasree

Rajesh.v.K. Vs Rajani.K

Sameera Vs Hassan Kollinuthazhe and Another