Allowed

Pramod E.K. v. Athira E.K.

Kerala HC23 Sept 2021Mat.Appeal/41/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed appeals and a revision petition regarding maintenance and educational expenses. It rejected past maintenance claims due to proof of regular payments, declined to enhance rates due to pending DV proceedings, and upheld a limited award for study fees of a daughter in Russia.

What did the court decide?

Appeal Mat. No. 41/2021 allowed in part to pay Rs. 50,000 in six monthly instalments; Mat. Appeal No. 702/2016 and R.P. No. 252/2016 dismissed.

Pramod E.K. Vs Athira E.K. — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943

¶7

MAT.APPEAL NO. 702 OF 2016

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.10.2015 IN OP 209/2014 OF FAMILY

¶9

COURT, THALASSERY

¶10

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶11

1 LOUNA V.C, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O PRABHAKARAN, LOUNA LOULY HOUSE, CHALA EAST, KANNUR 670621

¶12

2 ATHIRA, AGED 14 YEARS, D/O PRAMOD E.K., MINOR REP. BY MOTHER & GUARDIAN LOUNA V.C. LOUNA LOULY HOUSE, CHALA EAST, KANNUR 670621

¶13

3 AISWARYA, AGED 12 YEARS, D/O PRAMOD E.K, MINOR REP. BY MOTHER & GUARDIAN LOUNA V.C, CHALA EAST, KANNUR 670621

¶14

BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.P.K.SUBHASH

¶15

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶16

PRAMOD E.K, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O SUSHEELA, EDAVANA KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, P.O. MUZHAPPILANGAD, THALASSERY 670662 KANNUR DISTRICT 670001 (DHARMADAM POLICE STATION LIMIT)

¶17

BY ADVS. SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. SMT.R.REJI (ATTINGAL)

¶18

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.09.2021, ALONG WITH RPFC.252/2016 & MA 41/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Mat.Appeal No.702/2016, R.P.(FC).No.252/2016 & Mat.Appeal No.41/2021

¶20

-:2:-

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶22

PRESENT

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶24

¶25

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶26

THURSDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943

¶27

RPFC NO. 252 OF 2016

¶28

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.10.2015 IN MC 111/2014 OF

¶29

FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY,

¶30

REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:

¶31

1 LOUNA.V.C.

¶32

AGED 36 YEARS, D/O. PRABHAKARAN,LOUNA LOULY HOUSE, CHALA EAST,KANNUR - 670 621.

¶33

2 ATHIRA

¶34

AGED 14 YEARS, D/O. PRAMOD E.K,MINOR REP. BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN LOUNA V.C,LOUNA LOULY HOUSE, CHALA EAST,KANNUR - 670 621.

¶35

3 AISWARYA

¶36

AGED 12 YEARS, D/O. PRAMOD E.K.,MINOR REP. BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN LOUNA V.C,LOUNA LOULY HOUSE, CHALA EAST,KANNUR - 670 621.

¶37

BY ADVS.

¶38

SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.P.K.SUBHASH

¶39

Mat.Appeal No.702/2016, R.P.(FC).No.252/2016 & Mat.Appeal No.41/2021

¶40

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶41

PRAMOD.E.K. AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. SUSHEELA, EDAVANA KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE,P.O.MUZHAPPILANGAD, THALASSERY,PIN - 670 662, KANNUR DISTRICT(DHARMADAM POLICE STATION LIMIT)

¶42

BY ADVS. SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. SMT.R.REJI (ATTINGAL)

¶43

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.09.2021, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.NOS.702/2016 AND 41/21, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

Mat.Appeal No.702/2016, R.P.(FC).No.252/2016 & Mat.Appeal No.41/2021

¶45

-:4:-

¶46

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶47

PRESENT

¶48

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶49

¶50

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943

¶51

MAT.APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2021

¶52

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 617/2019 OF FAMILY COURT,

¶53

THALASSERY 14.8.2020

¶54

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶55

PRAMOD E.K., AGED 50 YEARS S/O. SEKHARAN, EDAVANA KUNNUPARAMBATH HOUSE, P.O MUZHAPPILANGAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR 670 662

¶56

BY ADVS. SREEJA SOHAN K. SMT.R.REJI (ATTINGAL)

¶57

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶58

ATHIRA E.K., AGED 20 YEARS D/O. PRAMOD E.K, LOUNA LOULY HOUSE, CHALA EAST KANNUR 670 621 RPERESENTED BY P.A HOLDER

¶59

REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND LEGAL GUARDIAN LOUNA V.C, D/O. PRABHAKARAN, AGED 40 YEARS, LOUNA LOULY HOUSE, CHALA EAST, KANNUR 670 621

¶60

BY ADV SRI.M.SASINDRAN

¶61

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.09.2021, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.702/2016 AND RPFC 252/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶62

Mat.Appeal No.702/2016, R.P.(FC).No.252/2016 & Mat.Appeal No.41/2021

¶63

Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2021

¶64

A.Muhamed Mustaque,J.

¶65

These matters are between the same parties. Mat.Appeal

¶66

No.702/2016 was filed by the wife and children of the respondent herein,

¶67

aggrieved by the denial of their claim for past maintenance from the

¶68

respondent. They claimed Rs.4,60,000/- towards past maintenance for the period from 1.4.2012 to 28.2.2014. The Family Court disallowed the claim

¶69

for past maintenance noting that the respondent used to sent money on a

¶70

regular basis to the appellants and on some occasions, it was refused by the

¶71

1st appellant. In this appeal the appellants would contend that no

¶72

document was produced by the respondent to establish the discharge of

¶73

obligation providing maintenance to the appellants.

¶74

Mat.Appeal No.702/2016, R.P.(FC).No.252/2016 & Mat.Appeal No.41/2021

¶75

-:6:-

¶76

R.P.(FC).No.252/2016

¶77

This revision petition is filed by the same appellants in

¶78

Mat.Appeal No.702/2016 challenging the inadequacy of maintenance awarded under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Family Court awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to appellants 2 and 3 towards future maintenance. The claim of the 1st appellant has been

¶79

rejected. In this revision petition, the petitioners claim enhanced rate of

¶80

maintenance towards petitioners 2 and 3 as well as award of maintenance to the 1st petitioner. It is submitted by both counsel before us that the 1st petitioner has been awarded maintenance on 14.10.2019 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. It

¶81

is also submitted that subsequent to the filing of the revision petition, the maintenance payable to the 3rd petitioner/ 3rd appellant was enhanced to Rs.4,000/- per month. The 2nd petitioner/2nd appellant has become major

¶82

Mat.Appeal No.702/2016, R.P.(FC).No.252/2016 & Mat.Appeal No.41/2021

¶83

and now studying in Russia for medical course.

¶84

Mat.Appeal No.41/2021

¶85

This appeal is filed at the instance of the respondent in the

¶86

other cases. He challenges the order of awarding educational expense to the respondent in this appeal, who is his daughter. The respondent joined

¶87

for higher studies in medical course in Russia. She claimed that she had spent Rs.4,84,100/- during the 1st year itself for joining the course. It was

¶88

the case of the respondent in this appeal that the amount was raised pledging gold ornaments of her mother and relatives. The case of the appellant is that he never permitted the respondent to join medical course

¶89

in Russia and therefore he is not liable to pay any amount.

¶90

The Family Court, adverted to the rival contentions awarded

¶91

only Rs.50,000/- towards educational expenses of the respondent. There is

¶92

no appeal at the instance of the respondent.

¶93

Mat.Appeal No.702/2016, R.P.(FC).No.252/2016 & Mat.Appeal No.41/2021

¶94

-:8:-

¶95

Mat.Appeal No.702/2016 was filed at the instance of the wife

¶96

and children challenging the denial of past maintenance to them. The

¶97

respondent, who is the husband of the 1st appellant and father of the children is a retired Army person. The Family Court placed reliance on the money order receipts sent by the respondent to the appellants. Noting this fact, the Family Court refused to award past maintenance. The Family Court also noted that the 1st appellant was employed during the period of claim. The Family Court further placed reliance on the testimony of the 1 st

¶98

appellant in her cross examination, where she admitted that the money sent by the respondent was acknowledged by her. Ext.A10 series are the money order receipts proving the acknowledgment of money sent by the respondent to the appellants. Exts.A11 and A12 would show that on certain occasion, the 1st appellant refused to acknowledge the money sent by the respondent. The past maintenance is claimed from the period of

¶99

Mat.Appeal No.702/2016, R.P.(FC).No.252/2016 & Mat.Appeal No.41/2021

¶100

-:9:-

¶101

1.4.2012 to 28.2.2014. When there are proof for making payments on a

¶102

regular basis, the appellants are bound to prove that the respondent has

¶103

failed to maintain the appellants during the period for which past maintenance is claimed. Having adverted to the appreciation of evidence,

¶104

we are of the view that no interference is warranted in the matter.

¶105

Accordingly, Mat.Appeal No.702/2016 is dismissed.

¶106

R.P.(FC).No. 252/2016 was filed aggrieved by the inadequacy

¶107

in the maintenance amount awarded and denial of maintenance to the 1 st

¶108

petitioner. As aforenoted, the 1st petitioner was given maintenance by the

¶109

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery in a proceedings in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In such circumstance, we need not award any maintenance to the 1 st petitioner. It is also submitted that the maintenance awarded to the 3 rd petitioner has

¶110

been enhanced subsequent to the filing of the revision. The 2nd petitioner

¶111

Mat.Appeal No.702/2016, R.P.(FC).No.252/2016 & Mat.Appeal No.41/2021

¶112

has attained majority and is studying in Russia. The 2 nd petitioner is at

¶113

liberty to move the Family Court for enhancement of maintenance. We are

¶114

not interfering with the rate of award of maintenance in the impugned judgment. We therefore dismiss this revision petition.

¶115

Mat.Appeal No.41/2021 was filed by the father challenging

¶116

award of a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards educational expense incurred by

¶117

the respondent. The respondent is admittedly a medical student studying in

¶118

Russia. Her claim was for Rs.4,84,100/-. There is no challenge at the

¶119

instance of the respondent. According to the appellant, he has no means to

¶120

pay that amount. It is submitted that his monthly pension is only

¶121

Rs.11,970/-. Even though the obligation to meet the educational expense

¶122

of an unmarried daughter cannot be disputed, in the light of Section 20(3)

¶123

of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the Family Court only

¶124

awarded Rs.50,000/- being reasonable amount. No doubt the father

¶125

Mat.Appeal No.702/2016, R.P.(FC).No.252/2016 & Mat.Appeal No.41/2021

¶126

-:11:-

¶127

cannot be saddled with the obligation to meet any expenses incurred by the

¶128

unmarried daughter without his consent or permission. The father would

¶129

be liable to bear the educational expenses if the daughter has joined any

¶130

other course in India. The amount awarded by the family Court is very

¶131

reasonable and would have been incurred by any student while undergoing the course in any under graduate program. We therefore, do

¶132

not want to interfere with the award of Rs.50,000/- towards educational

¶133

expense incurred by the respondent herein, who is the daughter of the

¶134

appellant. We allow the appellant to pay the maintenance awarded in six

¶135

monthly instalments from 15.10.2021 onwards. Mat.Appeal No.41/2021

¶136

is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/-

¶137

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶138

JUDGE

¶139

Sd/-

¶140

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

JUDGE

kp True copy

P.A. To Judge

Mat.Appeal No.702/2016, R.P.(FC).No.252/2016 & Mat.Appeal No.41/2021

¶145

-:12:-

¶146

APPENDIX OF MAT.APPEAL 41/2021

¶147

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

¶148

ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ZILA SAINIK WELFARE OFFICE, KANNUR DATED 15-12-2020 ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS REGARDING THE MRI SCAN TAKEN ON THE RIGHT KNEE OF THE APPELLANT ON 08-12-2020 ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION ISSUED BY DR. SATHYENDRA NAMBIAR ON 19-10-2020

Pramod E.K. v. Athira E.K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod E.K. v. Athira E.K.

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

Vijaya Kumar.v Vs Yamuna

Biju Menon Vs Priya Eapen (Priya Biju Menon)

Deepthi Vs Sumesh

Nisha M.John Vs Rajan Varghese Abraham

Louna.v.C. Vs Pramod.E.K.

Ratheesh Kumar P.K. Vs Deepa R.