Dismissed

Reju John v. Dhaya Reju

Kerala HC13 Jul 2021RPFC/112/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an order of the Muvattupuzha Family Court that enhanced a child's maintenance from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 4,000 per month. The Court held that the father could not evade liability by claiming no income, as the absence of evidence does not prove no income.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed; the order enhancing maintenance from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 4,000 per month stood affirmed.

Reju John Vs Dhaya Reju — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943

¶5

RPFC NO. 112 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 62/2015 OF FAMILY COURT,

¶7

MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶9

REJU JOHN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.C.M. JOHN, AGED 44 YEARS, CHOORALIL HOUSE, PAMPAKUDA P.O, ANCHALPETTY KARA, ONAKKOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK-686 667.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM (B-185)

¶11

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶12

DHAYA REJU, AGED 11 YEARS, D/O. ANU VARGHESE, ARIKUPURATHU HOUSE, MANNARI KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND ANU VARGHESE, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O. VARGHESE, ARIKUPURATHU HOUSE, MANNARI KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK-686 673.

¶13

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

R.P.(FC) No.112 of 2021

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The father came up against the order enhancing the maintenance at Rs.4,000/- per month from the original amount awarded earlier at the rate of Rs.2,000/- on the ground that he has no income or job to maintain the child but at the same time, submitted that he had maintained the child by giving an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month.

¶18

2. What is now ordered by the Family Court is beyond the reach of petitioner being a person having no job or income it is submitted. But the child is aged 9, and now continuing her studies in 3^rd standard. Hence she is entitled to maintenance sufficient to meet all her requirement including her education for which the father, who is liable to maintain the child, cannot wriggle out of the liabilities merely stating that he has no job or income. Further, the observation made by the Family Court that there is no sufficient evidence to show

¶19

R.P.(FC) No.112 of 2021

¶20

¶21

the income of the father is not sufficient to reject the claim. Absence of reliable evidence as to the income of father, doesn't mean that he has no income or job.

¶22

The paternity of the child is not in dispute and as such, I could not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court. Hence the Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶23

Sd/P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE

¶24

Reju John v. Dhaya Reju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reju John v. Dhaya Reju

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

Shaijul Rahman Chakkungal Vs Shahana Thalayancheeri

Thomas Abraham Vs State of Kerala

Sayed Muhammed Anas Vs the State of Kerala

Muhammed Shafi Vs State of Kerala

Jayadevan K.K., Vs State of Kerala

Joffy Babu Vs Josh Joffy