Dismissed

K.R.Pazhaniswami v. Chandrika Varasiar

Kerala HC18 Jul 2018Mat.Appeal/1002/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that a presumption of marriage arose from long cohabitation and a born child. It rejected the appellant's claim of lack of income due to sold properties and dismissed the challenges to the Family Court's maintenance order for both past and future periods as having no merit.

What did the court decide?

Challenged appeal and revision petition against the Family Court's maintenance order were dismissed.

K.R.Pazhaniswami Vs Chandrika Varasiar — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE &

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

Mat.Appeal.No. 1002 of 2009

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP 745/2008 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE DATED 29-09-2009

¶7

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

¶8

K.R.PAZHANISWAMY, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.RAMASWAMI GOUNDER,, KARUKAPPARA, KOZHINJAMPARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H.

¶10

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶11

CHANDRIKA VARASIAR, AGED 56 YEARS, D/O.T.V.ACHUTHAN WARRIAR,, MUTHEDATH HOUSE, KAKKUR P.O.,, VIA. NENMANDA, KOZHIKODE.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶13

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-07-2018, ALONG WITH RPFC 458/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

A.M.SHAFFIQUE & P.SOMARAJAN, JJ

¶15

- - - - Mat.A. No. 1002 of 2009 &

¶16

R.P.(FC).No.458 of 2009

¶17

- - - - Dated this the 18^th day of July, 2018

JUDGMENT

SHAFFIQUE, J.

The appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 29.09.2009 in O.P. No.745 of 2008, by which the family Court had awarded past maintenance to the respondent/wife, who is the petitioner in the original petition, at the rate of Rs.1,500/per month from 17.8.2005 to 17.8.2008.

¶22

R.P.(FC).No.458 of 2009 was filed challenging the

¶23

award of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month.

¶24

The main contention urged by the appellant is that there is no valid marriage between the parties. That apart, he is now aged 75 years and does not have sufficient income. It is submitted that the appellant had married another lady and during the subsistence of marriage respondent came in as a maid servant. Further a child was born to them and the petitioner had made all arrangement for her future as well. The child has become major and is working as a Professor who is capable of taking care of the respondent as well.

¶25

Mat.A. No. 1002 of 2009 & R.P.(FC).No.458 of 2009 -2-

¶26

On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the amount awarded is only meagre. The respondent does not have any other income other than the maintenance ordered by the Family Court.

¶27

Despite the fact that the petitioner is an aged person, it is his obligation to maintain the respondent, especially when he admits the fact that a child had been born in the relationship between him and the respondent. Therefore, the fact that they were living together is not disputed. The Family Court observed that there is a presumption of marriage arising out of long cohabitation between the petitioner and the respondent. We do not think that a different view is to be taken in the matter. That apart, the respondent does not have any job, whereas the petitioner has income from agricultural properties. It is in evidence that he is a farmer having 12 acres of land and he is having plantation and the income derived from it. Learned counsel for the appellant however submits that, the properties that the appellant had were sold for the marriage expense of his daughter. But still, we are of the view that when the amount

¶28

Mat.A. No. 1002 of 2009 & R.P.(FC).No.458 of 2009 -3-

¶29

involved is meagre, as a responsible person, he is bound to maintain the respondent. Under such circumstances, we do not find any merit in the challenge made, either for past maintenance or future maintenance.

¶30

Both Mat.Appeal and R.P.(FC) are dismissed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶33

sd/-

¶34

P.SOMARAJAN, JUDGE

¶35

K.R.Pazhaniswami v. Chandrika Varasiar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.R.Pazhaniswami v. Chandrika Varasiar

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

R.v.Gangadharan Vs K.T.Leela

G.Sudeep Kumar and Another Vs P.B.Mini

K.v.Haridas Vs M.N.Kalpakom & Others

Jayakumar @ Unni Vs Lekshmi Preetha

K.R.Pazhaniswami Vs Chandrika Varasiar

Hemalatha.P. Vs C.v.Vijayakumar