Partly allowed

Vijayan S v. Suganthi S

Kerala HC14 Mar 2019RPFC/362/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition challenging a Family Court order granting monthly maintenance, the High Court held that the petitioner's medical condition and lack of employment justified a reduction in the fixed quantum. The maintenance was reduced from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 2,000 per month.

What did the court decide?

Monthly maintenance directed to be reduced to Rs. 2,000 from the date of the original petition.

Vijayan S Vs Suganthi S — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

RP(FC).No. 362 of 2014

¶6

M.C.NO.121/2013 of FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD DATED 18-06-2014

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶8

VIJAYAN S., AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.SHINSHAN, VIJAYA BHAVAN, THADIVEEZHUNNA KARIKKAM, KILIYOOR, VELLARADA P.O.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM

¶10

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶11

SUGANTHI S., AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.SARASAMMA, NEDUMANOOR, THENKARATHALA PANAYIL VEEDU, PUNALAL P.O., NEDUMANGAD, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE-695 575.

¶12

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

RPFC.No. 362 of 2014 : 2 :

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The petitioner who challenges the impugned order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Nedumangad, on 18.6.2014 in M.C.No.121/2013, is the husband of the respondent herein.

¶16

Though respondent was served with notice, she did not appear and participate in this proceeding.

¶17

The court below, after holding enquiry and recording evidence, found that the respondent was entitled to a monthly maintenance of `3,000/- from the date of petition. Being aggrieved by the quantum fixed by the court below, the revision petitioner has filed this petition.

¶18

The matrimonial relationship between parties is no longer in dispute. It is an admitted fact that no issues have been born out of the wedlock. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner neglected to maintain her for no good reasons and since she is unable to maintain herself, she was entitled to be maintained by him. According to her, he is a

¶19

RPFC.No. 362 of 2014 : 3 :

¶20

mason-cum-rubber-tapper and has sufficient income to maintain her. In answer to her claim for maintenance, the petitioner contended before the court below that he cannot do any manual work in as much as he is laid up due to physical illness and further he is under legal obligation to maintain his former wife as well as his minor children. He alleged that the respondent is conducting a tailoring shop and is capable of earning by herself.

¶21

In order to prove that the petitioner is not in a position to carry out any manual work, he produced a few medical certificates as well as discharge cards issued from an Ayurvedic Hospital in Neyyattinkara. The respondent in her evidence as PW1 testified that the petitioner has sufficient means of his own and has neglected to maintain her for no justifiable reasons. Rebutting this evidence, CPW1, the revision petitioner herein sought to prove through the medical records that he is not capable of performing any manual work due to illness.

¶22

The court below, after examining the materials on

¶23

record, held that medical records produced before the court

¶24

RPFC.No. 362 of 2014 : 4 :

¶25

were not sufficient to prove that the petitioner is incapable of performing any normal work. On re-appreciating the evidence on record, I am also of the opinion that the records are not sufficient to prove that the revision petitioner is disabled from performing any physical or manual work. The allegation that the respondent is conducting a tailoring shop and is capable of earning by herself for her livelihood has not been proved by any evidence. On the other hand, the evidence tendered by PW1 shows that she is not capable enough to maintain herself at all.

¶26

The court below, after taking the entire facts, materials and evidence into consideration, held that the petitioner is able to maintain the respondent at the rate of `3,000/- per month. I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding entered into by the lower court. Nevertheless, taking into account the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner is practically jobless and used to be admitted in hospital very frequently, I am of the view that some leniency shall be shown

¶27

RPFC.No. 362 of 2014 : 5 :

¶28

by reducing the maintenance amount fixed by the court below. Thus, taking a liberal attitude to the revision petitioner, the monthly maintenance of 3,000/- fixed as per the impugned order is modified to 2,000/- per month.

¶29

In the result, in modification of the impugned order dated 18.6.2014, the revision petitioner is directed to pay monthly maintenance of `2,000/- to the respondent from the date of the

¶30

M.C. petition.

¶31

R.P.(FC) is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

T.V.ANILKUMAR

JUDGE

[True copy]

P.A to Judge

Vijayan S v. Suganthi S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayan S v. Suganthi S

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

Ranganathan Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Hakkem P.V Vs State of Kerala

P.G.Krishnan @ Gopalakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Prince George Vs State of Kerala

Anoop K.S. Vs Aswathy Rajan

Ashraf Vs Naseema