Disposed

Baiju V.P v. Sharmini

Kerala HC15 Nov 2019RPFC/350/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged a Family Court order fixing monthly maintenance. The High Court affirmed the need for maintenance but reduced the rates. It directed the petitioner to pay arrears within two months, allowing 50% of interest from a fixed deposit to be adjusted against the daughter's maintenance.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance rates reduced; payment of arrears within two months; 50% of fixed deposit interest adjusted against daughter's maintenance; stay on coercive execution steps.

Baiju V.P Vs Sharmini — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

RPFC.No.350 OF 2017

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 138/2014 DATED 21-04-2017 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶8

BAIJU V.P S/O.LATE PARAMESWARAN, AGED 44 YEARS, VELIYATHU HOUSE, EDAYAPURAM, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SMT.CAROLIN SINDHU VAZ SMT.P.A.JAIMOLE

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶11

1 SHARMINI

¶12

D/O.CHANTHU, AGED 38 YEARS, USHUS BHAVAN, PALLILAMKARA, THRIKKAKKARA NORTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶13

2 AISWARYA AGED 15 YEARS, D/O.V.P.BAIJU, RESIDING AT USHUS BHAVAN, PALLILAMKARA, THRIKKAKKARA NORTH VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.(2ND RESPONDENT BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHERTHE 1ST RESPONDENT).

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SMT.M.CHANDRALEKHA

¶15

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

RPFC.No.350 OF 2017

¶17

¶18

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶19

R.P.(F.C.) No. 350 of 2017

¶20

Dated this the 15^th day of November, 2019

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The aforecaptioned revision petition is directed as against the impugned final order dated 21.01.2017 rendered by the Family Court in M.C. No.138/2014, whereby the revision petitioner herein has been directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to R1 herein (divorced wife) and at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to R2 herein (then 15 year old minor daughter) from the date of the petition.

¶23

Heard Smt.Carolin Sindhu Vaz, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Smt.M.Chandralekha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶24

The respondents herein have filed the abovesaid maintenance case before the Family Court seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/per month to R1 herein and Rs.7,000/- per month to R2 herein. After taking evidence and after due appreciation of the evidence and after hearing the parties concerned, the Family Court has found that the revision petitioner herein (respondent therein ) is working as an Electrician and that the Family Court has further noted that the revision petitioner has taken very many unnecessary conditions to get over his liability to pay

¶25

RPFC.No.350 OF 2017

¶26

¶27

maintenance. Further Ext.A1 shows that R1 herein suffers from disc problems for which treatment is necessary.

¶28

The revision petitioner had contended that R1 herein is working in a private firm and she is earning more than Rs.10,000/- per month, but no evidence has been adduced by the revision petitioner herein to even remotely establish the said claim and it is found that R2 herein was then studied in Standard X in Mount Tabor Residential School, Kalamassery and huge amount is necessary for her educational purposed.

¶29

Taking note of the overall situation, the Family Court has held that the revision petitioner will have to pay maintenance atleast at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to R1 herein and at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to R2 herein.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would point out that R2 is now aged 18 years and she is now joined for B.Tech course and her tuition fee alone would come to Rs.32,500/- per semester, apart from various other huge expenses. In the light of these aspects, this Court is not in a position to held that the Family Court has committed any major illegality or unreasonableness in arriving at the said view. Further, taking note of the repeated pleas by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner about his limited income, this Court is inclined to reduce the maintenance amount to be paid to R3 herein to Rs.4,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would point out that the petitioner has now remarried, after the divorce and that he is also

¶30

RPFC.No.350 OF 2017

¶31

¶32

looking after his daughter born in his second marriage. Further that, the petitioner has already deposited Rs.1 lakh as fixed deposit in the name of R2 herein based on the compromise arrived at in the divorce proceedings and that atleast the interest accrued on the said fixed deposit may be reckoned for the purpose of adjusting against the maintenance amount to be paid to R2 herein. The learned counsel for R1 herein has seriously opposed the said plea and pointed out that the said payment of Rs.1 lakh was made by the petitioner as part of the divorce proceedings.

¶33

After hearing both sides and after taking into account the financial difficulties projected by the reivision petitioner, it is ordered in the interest of justice that 50% of the interest which has generated out of the said fixed deposit of Rs.1 lakh shall be adjusted as against the maintenance arrears amounts to be paid by the petitioner to R2 herein. While admitting this revision petition, this Court had granted interim stay of the impugned order on condition that the petitioner should deposit 1/3^rd of the arrears till then and should also pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to both the respondents herein and that upto date arrears in that account has already been duly paid by the petitioner.

¶34

The counsel for the respondents would urge that the abovesaid submission made by the petitioner is factually not correct and that about

¶35

RPFC.No.350 OF 2017

¶36

¶37

more than Rs.23,000/- is still due to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents in compliance with the abovesaid interim order passed by this Court. This Court need not get into those factual issues and those are all the matters to be sorted out by the execution court. Accordingly, the following orders and directions are passed :

¶38

(1) The petitioner will pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to R1 herein and at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month to R2 herein from the date of the petition.

¶39

(2) The maintenance amounts already paid by the petitioner shall be duly adjusted against the amounts to be paid by the petitioner. Further, 50 % of the interest amounts generated on the abovesaid fixed deposit of Rs.1 lakh which has been now withdrawn by R2, should be adjusted as against the maintenance amount to be paid by the revision petitioner to R2 herein.

¶40

(3) All unpaid arrears should be paid by the petitioner within 2 months, which he will have to deposit before the Family Court within the said time limit, upon which the said court will release the said amount to the respondents herein. Till the, the Family Court will keep in abeyance further coercive steps for the execution of the impugned order.

¶41

RPFC.No.350 OF 2017

¶42

¶43

The impugned order passed by the Family Court will stand modified as above. On failure of the petitioner to clear the abovesaid arrears at the abovesaid rate within the abovesaid time limit, the respondents herein will be at liberty to seek execution of the abovesaid directions before the Family Court.

¶44

With these observations and directions, the above R.P.(F.C). will stand disposed of.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶47

SKS

Baiju V.P v. Sharmini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baiju V.P v. Sharmini

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

Santhosh.M.K Vs a.S.Aruja

Suneer Chieripparamban Vs Rubeena

Kunnummal Saleem Vs Nasiya

Satheesan v., Vs Leena

Lithinmon Latheesh Vs State of Kerala

Bijulal Vs State of Kerala