The High Court of Kerala dismissed a revision petition challenging the Family Court's order denying maintenance to a wife. The Family Court found the petitioner self-sufficient with a higher income than the respondent and deemed it unfit for maintenance.
Revision petition dismissed; Family Court order upholding denial of maintenance affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1941
RPFC.No.209 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 365/2014 DATED 30-03-2019 OF FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
ANEESHA P.S. AGED 33 YEARS W/O.VINOD AND D/O.LATE SAID MOHAMMED, PATTATHICHIRA HOUSE, VADUTHALA JETTY.P.O., AORRKUTTY, CHERTHALA, NOW RESIDING AT MUTHUKAYIL HOUSE, C/O.JOSEPH WILSON, KUMARANASHAN NAGAR, KALOOR, KOCHI-682017.
BY ADVS. SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY SRI.ANIL GEORGE
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
VINOD C.M., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.K.K.MANI, VALIYAPARAMBU, EDAPPALLY NORTH.P.O., KOCHI-682024.
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC.No.209 OF 2019
2
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
===========================
R.P(F.C)No.209 of 2019
===========================
Dated this the 07th day of November, 2019
ORDER
The aforecaptioned revision petition is directed against the impugned final order dated 30.03.2019 rendered by the Family Court, Ernakulam in M.C.No.365/2014. The abovesaid M.C.No.365/2014 has been filed by the revision petitioner (wife) before the Family Court, Ernakulam, seeking for payment of maintenance by the respondent herein (husband). The Family Court has dismissed the claim of the revision petitioner (wife) for grant of maintenance. Being aggrieved by the abovesaid impugned final order rendered by the Family Court on 30.03.2019, the wife has filed the instant revision petition under Sec.19 (4) of the Family Court's Act, 1984.
RPFC.No.209 OF 2019
3
holder and that she has been employed since 2009 onwards and that she is working in M/s Global Tyres as an Accountant. Ext.B1 is the salary certificate produced by the wife, which would show that her monthly income is Rs.7,700/-. The wife would contend that she cannot meet all her expenses in the said limited salary and that her husband is liable to maintain her. The husband had pointed out that he is now working in a lady's stores and earning hardly only Rs.7,500/- per month. Ext.A6 is the salary certificate, which would prove that fact. Ext.A7 is the registration certificate of a scooter belonging to the wife. The Family Court has thus found that even after filing of the present maintenance claim, the wife has been able to purchase the scooter after availing a loan and further that the wife's income was found to be more than the husband's income. The wife is a B.Com graduate, whereas the husband has only completed SSLC. In the light of these aspects, the Family Court has taken the considered view that it may not be right and proper to direct the husband to pay maintenance to the wife, as his income is Rs.7,500/-, which less than the salary of the wife. Since the wife was found to have gainful employment and was drawing salary more than the husband, the Family Court in its discretion found that this is not a fit case to direct the husband to pay maintenance to the
RPFC.No.209 OF 2019
4
claimant wife. The abovesaid fact findings made by the Family Court cannot be said to be palpably perverse or unreasonable or improper. The petitioner has not been able to make out any cogent grounds for invoking the revisional interdiction of this Court.
With the said liberty, the above R.P(F.C) will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE
vgd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Family Court's order dismissing the wife's maintenance claim given her higher income compared to the husband.
Whether the revision petitioner has cogent grounds to invoke revisional interdiction under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Crl.A.No.1399/2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7203/2019)Referred¶30
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Aneesha P.S.
Vinod C.M.
Alexander Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Alexander Thomas
Parties & counsel
