The High Court granted a revision petition increasing maintenance for the wife and child, holding the Family Court's lower award insufficient. It allowed a petition challenging the rejection of evidence regarding the wife's employment.
Maintenance increased to Rs. 4,000 for the wife and Rs. 3,000 for the child monthly.
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 P.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1943
RPFC NO. 22 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 245/2017 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
SHAIJUL RAHMAN CHAKKUNGAL, AGED 33 YEARS, S/o BEERANKUTTY, CHAKKUNGAL HOUSE, THEKKUMKUTTY, KARASSERI, P.O.ALLI, MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT BY ADV U.K.DEVIDAS
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SHAHANA THALAYANCHEERI, AGED 25 YEARS, D/o MUHAMMED, THACHAMPARAMBU HOUSE, URNGATTIRI, MYTHRA POST, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 639 2 SHIYA MEHASIN C., AGED 6 YEARS (MINOR), D/o SHAIJUL RAHMAN CHAKKUNGAL,
REP.BY MOTHER SHAHANA THALAYANCHEERI, AGED 25 YEARS, D/o MUHAMMED, THACHAMPARAMBU HOUSE, URNGATTIRI, MYTHRA POST, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 639
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.(F.C.) Nos.22/2021 & 301/2020
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1943
RPFC NO. 301 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 245/2017 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM,
REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:
1 SHAHANA THALAYANCHEERI, AGED 25 YEARS, D/o MUHAMMED, THACHAMPARAMBU, URNGATTIRI, MAITHRA POST, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2 SHIYA MEHASIN C., AGED 5 YEARS, D/o SHAIJUL RAHMAN CHAKKUNGAL, THACHAMPARAMBU, URNGATTIRI, MAITHRA POST, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY MOTHER, 1ST PETITIONER)
BY ADVS.T.K.AJITH KUMAR SMT.AISWARYA RAMESAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
SHAIJUL RAHMAN CHAKKUNGAL, AGED 33 YEARS, S/o BEERANKUTTY, CHAKKUNGAL, THEKKUMKUTTY KARASSERI, POST ALLI, MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS SRI.S.BIJILAL
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.(F.C.) Nos.22/2021 & 301/2020
3
ORDER
The husband came up in R.P.(F.C) No.22/2021 against the order of maintenance to the child at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. The paternity is not in dispute. What is ordered by the Family Court comes to only Rs.3,000/- per month, though the child is entitled to a living standard which she had accustomed while living with the petitioner, father. What is ordered by the Family Court is only a meager amount of Rs.3,000/- per month. Though a case was advanced that he was employed abroad, it was denied by him. In so far as R.P.(F.C.) No.301/2020 is concerned it is the wife who came up against the order rejecting maintenance by the Family Court on the ground that what she had deposed before the court as PW1 cannot be accepted in view of the oral evidence tendered through RW2, the Manager of a hospital wherein she was alleged to have been employed. RW2, the Manager, had given oral evidence to the effect that she had worked there as a trainee for a period of six months by receiving a stipend of Rs.2,000/- per month as against her assertion that it was only for a period of two months. The
R.P.(F.C.) Nos.22/2021 & 301/2020
4
punching details also produced to show that she had continued her job at the hospital. It is submitted that it is pertaining to the period wherein she had studied her Pharmacy Course in that hospital. The oral evidence tendered by RW2, the Manager of the hospital, was rejected by the Family Court simply disbelieving the oral testimony of RW2, on a flimsy ground. A strange observation is also made by the trial court to the effect that RW2, the Manager of the Hospital, did not disclose the true state of affairs on the ground that, it will be taken as a ground by the wife on a later stage to claim huge amount from the hospital. The reason advanced by the Family Court to reject the oral evidence of RW2 cannot be sustained. Even otherwise the oral evidence tendered by RW2 would show that she had been permitted to work there as a trainee only for a period of six months by making payment at the rate of Rs.2,000/per month by way of stipend. The wife is entitled to a standard of living which she had accustomed while living with her husband. The question whether he was employed abroad or came back without any job requires no consideration at this stage simply on the reason that the learned counsel for the husband fairly submitted that conciliation talks are going on so as to have a reunion. That would certainly tell upon what is behind it. While taking into consideration all the attending circumstances, there will be a direction to the petitioner/husband to pay monthly maintenance
R.P.(F.C.) Nos.22/2021 & 301/2020
5
at the rate of Rs.4,000/- to the wife, besides the order of maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the child.
R.F.(F.C) No.22/2021 will stand dismissed and R.P. (FC)
No.301/2020 will stand allowed accordingly.
Sd/- P. SOMARAJAN, JUDGE
DMR/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the maintenance amount ordered by the Family Court for the wife and child is sufficient considering the standard of living.
Whether the rejection of the wife's employment evidence by the Family Court was sustainable.
Shaijul Rahman Chakkungal
Shahana Thalayancheeri
Shiya Mehasin C.
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
