The Kerala High Court disposed of a revision against a Family Court maintenance order, finding no fault as the petitioner was an agriculturist capable of earning. The revision was dismissed with directions to pay 50% arrears.
Petitioner granted 4 months to clear 50% arrears then 50%; maintenance payments due by 10th of every month from December 2019.
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
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 23RD ASWINA, 1941
RPFC.No.235 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 16/2015 DATED 30-07-2018 OF FAMILY COURT, Pala
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
THOMAS A.P., AGED 40 YEARS ALUMKAL (H), THAZHATHUVADAKARA P.O., VELLAVOOR, MANIMALA.
BY ADVS. SRI.V.B.PREMACHANDRAN SRI.S.MADHAVAN NAIR SRI.K.N.GOVINDANKUTTY MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 ANU THOMAS, AGED 33, W/O.THOMAS A.P., PULLUKATTU HOUSE, MANNADISALA P.O., VECHOOCHIRA, KOOTHATTUKULAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 686 511.
2 AROON THOMAS PHILIP, AGED 5, S/O.THOMAS A.P., PULLUKATTU HOUSE, MANNADISALA P.O., VECHOOCHIRA, KOOTHATTUKULAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND ANU THOMAS, PULLUKATTU HOUSE, MANNADISALA P.O., VECHOOCHIRA, KOOTHATTUKULAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT -686 511.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.SANDHYA.R.NAIR FOR THE RESPONDENTS SRI.JEEVAN RAJEEV FOR RESPONDENTS.
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
::2::
RPFC.No.235 OF 2019
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J .
R.P(FC).No.235 Of 2019
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2019.
O R D E R
The above revision petition filed under Sec.19(4) of the Family Courts Act is directed to impugn the final order dated 30.7.2018 rendered by the Family Court, Pala, in M.C.No.16/2015 filed by the respondents herein whereby they have prayed to grant maintenance to them by the revision petitioner herein (respondent therein) in terms of Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C.
::3::
RPFC.No.235 OF 2019
maintenance under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. The main contention taken by the petitioner is that he is not having any job or other source of income. It is also pleaded that the 1st respondent herein (wife) is living in adultery and she has some affairs with one Sibi and therefore she is not entitled to claim maintenance. The petitioner has even gone to the extent of alleging that the minor son (2nd respondent herein) is not born in his relationship with the 1st respondent, etc. The Family Court held that the petitioner has not in any manner adduced evidence establishing such allegations and thus overruled the abovesaid contention of the petitioner. Further the Family Court noted that the case of the 1st respondent herein is that she was forced to live separately from the revision petitioner herein due to cruelty on his part and from his mother. The Family Court has held, after considering the evidence, that the wife has been able to show that she has justifiable reasons to live apart from the petitioner herein. As regards the income of the revision petitioner, the Family Court noted that admittedly he is an agriculturist and he has stated in evidence that he has 1.70 acres of land in which rubber tapping is done and that daily about 20 rubber sheets are obtained and that value of a rubber sheet comes
::4::
RPFC.No.235 OF 2019
to Rs.200/- per kilogram and each rubber sheet weighs about 750 grams and accordingly, the Family Court has held that the contention of the petitioner that he is not earning income is bereft of any merit. Taking into the account the fact that the revision petitioner is an able bodied man and being the husband of the 1st respondent herein and father of the 2nd respondent-minor son, the Family Court held that the petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to the respondents herein. It is on that basis the Family Court held that maintenance should be paid by the petitioner @ Rs.5,000/- to the 1st respondent and @ Rs.3,000/- to the 2nd respondent herein with effect from February, 2015 (date of filing of M.C.No.16/2015). After hearing both sides, this Court is not in a position to find fault with the abovesaid considered view taken by the Family Court, after due appreciation of the evidence on record. The Apex Court has recently held in the judgment dated 16.09.2019 in Crl.Appeal No.1399/2019 (arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.7203/2019) that unless there are extraordinary good reasons, it may not be right and proper for the High Courts to interfere with maintenance matters especially arising under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. proceedings. After hearing both sides, it is seen
::5::
RPFC.No.235 OF 2019
that no effective grounds are made by the petitioner so as to interdict with the impugned order.
::6::
RPFC.No.235 OF 2019
desire in the pending Matrimonial Appeal proceedings now pending before the Division Bench of this Court and if such mediatory efforts are successful and the present directions given as per the present impugned order rendered by the Family Court in the matter of awarding of maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondents require any such modification or alteration based on such mediatory settlement, then the petitioner will be at liberty approach the Family Court under Sec.127 of the Cr.P.C for alteration of the maintenance amount pursuant to such changed circumstances.
::7::
RPFC.No.235 OF 2019
from the date of petition up to 30.11.2019 before the Family Court, Pala, within 2 months from today and the remaining 50% in that regard should be deposited by the petitioner within 2 months thereafter. On such deposit, the Family Court, Pala will forthwith release the said amounts to the respondents through the 1st respondent herein. The petitioner should also pay maintenance at the abovesaid rates for the period from December, 2019 onwards by the 10th of every month. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not comply with the abovesaid direction to pay the maintenance either in whole or in part, then the respondents will be at liberty to seek execution of the impugned order before the Family Court. Accordingly, it is made clear that the main prayer made by the petitioner will stand disallowed.
The Registry will forward a copy of this order to the Family Court, Pala for necessary information.
With these observations and directions, the above Revision Petition (FC) will stand disposed of.
Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.
bkn/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petitioner is liable if he is a land-owning agriculturist with rubber sheets.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the Family Court's maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. without extraordinary grounds.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Crl.Appeal No.1399/2019 (arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.7203/2019) dated 16.09.2019Explained¶30
3 provisions across 2 enactments
THOMAS A.P.
ANU THOMAS
AROON THOMAS PHILIP
ALEXANDER THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
ALEXANDER THOMAS
Parties & counsel
