Partly allowed

S.Sanjeev v. Janani K

Kerala HC23 Mar 2021RPFC/274/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, reviewing maintenance orders, held the retrospective amount just but found the prospective monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000 deficient. It enhanced the future maintenance to Rs.8,000 while dismissing the retrospective enhancement due to lack of specific evidence.

What did the court decide?

Monthly maintenance allowance increased from Rs.6,000 to Rs.8,000 per month from the date of the impugned order.

S.Sanjeev Vs Janani K — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1943

¶5

RPFC.No.274 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.04.2019 IN M.C.NO.197 OF 2016 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:

¶8

S.SANJEEV, S/O. P.SATHYANARAYANAN, AGED 39 YEARS, 'SAJEEVAM', KAKKAYUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY SMT.K.VIJINA SMT.RASHMI PATHIYIL

¶11

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶12

JANANI K, D/O. MOHANDAS NAIR, AGED 35 YEARS, 9, SREERAMA PADAM, MARHUTHAROAD, PALAKKAD - 678 007.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.BABU SMT.N.SUDHA SRI.BABU SHANKAR

¶14

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-12-2020, ALONG WITH RPFC.347/2019, THE COURT ON 23-03-2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

RP(FC) Nos. 274 & 347 of 2019

¶16

-:2:-

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶18

PRESENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶20

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1943

¶21

RPFC.No.347 OF 2019

¶22

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.04.2019 IN M.C.NO.197/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD

¶23

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶24

JANANI K,

¶25

AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.LATE R.MOHANDAS, SREERAMA PADHAM, MARUTHAROAD P.O, PALAKKAD , PINCODE 678 512

¶26

BY ADVS.

¶27

SRI.K.S.BABU SMT.N.SUDHA SRI.BABU SHANKAR SMT.VARSHA SAHAJAN

¶28

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶29

SANJEEV,

¶30

AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.SATHYA NARAYANAN, SAJEEVAM, KAKKAYOOR, KODUVAYUR (VIA), PALAKKAD 678 512

¶31

BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY

¶32

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-12-2020, ALONG WITH RPFC.274/2019, THE COURT ON 23-03-2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

RP(FC) Nos. 274 & 347 of 2019

¶34

-:3:-

¶35

MARY JOSEPH, J.

¶36

- - - - R.P(F.C) Nos. 274 & 347 of 2019

¶37

- - - - Dated this the 23^rd day of March, 2021

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

These revisions are filed against an order passed by

¶40

Family Court, Palakkad (for short 'the court below') on 30.04.2019 in M.C.No.197 of 2016. Common judgment was

¶41

passed by court below in Original Petition Nos. 44 of 2016, 166 of 2017 and M.C.No.197 of 2016. M.C was allowed in part and the husband was directed to pay monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.4,500/- to the wife from 05.10.2016, the date of the petition, till the date of the order and at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month from the date of the order, within one month. The wife was also allowed to realise a sum of Rs.5,000/as costs from the husband and his assets.

¶42

Aggrieved by the order passed as above, the husband

¶43

has filed the revision as R.P.(F.C) No.274 of 2019 and the wife has filed R.P.(F.C) No.347 of 2019.

¶44

For the sake of clarity, the parties to these revisions are referred to hereinafter as the petitioner and the respondent in accordance with their status in the M.C. before the court

¶45

RP(FC) Nos. 274 & 347 of 2019

¶46

-:4:-

¶47

below. Brief discussion on pleadings of the parties and evidence being relevant for consideration of the revisions are made hereunder:-

¶48

The petitioner in the M.C and the respondent got married on 17.11.2011 at Panchayath Kalyana Mandapam, Pudussery as per customs prevalent in their community. Immediately after the marriage, the petitioner was directed to live in a rented house at Palakkad alongwith the mother of the respondent, in view of the employment of the respondent then at Kochi. After sometime, they resided together at Ernakulam. The respondent and his mother then started to ill-treat the petitioner for not acceding to their demand to procure her share in her parental property and surrender gold ornaments. They treated the petitioner as a maid servant in the house and was made to do all household works. She was not even allowed to share bed with the respondent with a view to prevent conception. When the torture of the respondent and his mother traversed her limit of sufferance, she left their company on 20.01.2013 and thereafter, the respondent neglected to maintain her. The respondent was a Senior Accountant in a private industrial concern with a monthly income of Rs.53,000/-. The respondent has none to be maintained. The petitioner was unemployed and

¶49

RP(FC) Nos. 274 & 347 of 2019 -:5:-

¶50

unable to maintain herself. She was in need of Rs.25,000/monthly as allowance to meet her requirements of food, shelter, clothing, medicines and therefore a claim for that was laid before the court below.

¶51

Respondent has filed counter statement admitting the status of the petitioner as his wife and denying the averments of the petitioner regarding ill-treatment. Admittedly, the respondent was a Senior Accountant in a private company. According to him, the petitioner belongs to a rich family having landed properties and other assets and therefore was not contented with his financial status. Since the respondent was unable to provide her a life of luxury, the petitioner left his company on 20.01.2013 without any valid reasons. Despite the efforts made by the respondent to take her back, she did not return. The respondent has his aged parents to be maintained with the nominal income obtained by him from his job.

¶52

As already stated, evidence was adduced in the M.C and the Original Petitions seeking various reliefs in common, treating O.P.No.44 of 2016, filed by the respondent in the M.C, as the leading case. The respondent was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on his side. The petitioner was examined as RW1 and Exts.B1 to B36 were marked on her side.

¶53

RP(FC) Nos. 274 & 347 of 2019

¶54

-:6:-

¶55

On appreciation of the evidence, the court below found that the petitioner is entitled to get monthly maintenance allowance from the respondent and fixed Rs.4,500/- as the quantum payable, from the date of the petition till the date of order and Rs.6,000/-, thereafter.

¶56

The only challenge raised by the petitioners and respondent in the revisions on hand is against the quantum ordered to be paid as monthly maintenance allowance. According to the respondent, the quantum is on the higher side, and to the petitioner, it is on the lower side. The petitioner seeks for enhancement of the sum ordered as monthly maintenance allowance by the impugned order, whereas the respondent seeks for reduction of the same. Such being the context, it is incumbent upon this Court to look into the oral as well as documentary evidence already brought on record by the parties to see, whether the quantum ordered is just and reasonable.

¶57

As per the averment of the petitioner, the respondent was employed as a Senior Accountant in a private industrial concern with a monthly salary of Rs.53,000/-. Though she tendered oral evidence, independent evidence to support her version is not adduced. Admittedly, the respondent was working as a Senior Accountant in a private institution, but, the salary

¶58

RP(FC) Nos. 274 & 347 of 2019

¶59

-:7:-

¶60

obtained is only meagre. But, during examination he had taken a stand that the gross salary obtained is Rs.50,000/-. But, any authentic document to establish that is not produced. Therefore, there is total lack of evidence to establish the actual monthly income and the salary taken home after meeting the statutory deductions. In the said context, the court below has fixed Rs.4,500/- as the monthly maintenance allowance payable to her, from the date of petition till the date of order and Rs.6,000/-, thereafter.

¶61

It has come in evidence that the father of the respondent was also employed with reasonable income and after availing voluntary retirement, he left for Palakkad and obtained a job in a private electrical company. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued in the above context that the respondent's claim that his father is maintained by him is devoid of merits. Ext.A10, a certificate issued by Ayyappa Electricals in the name of his father is produced by the respondent. Ext.A10 was produced by the respondent to establish that his father left his job at Ayyappa Electricals on 10.05.2018. But, Ext.A10 certificate does not incorporate the name of the person who issued it and also his capacity to issue the same on behalf of Ayyappa Electricals. A signature was found affixed in Ext.A10

¶62

-:8:-

¶63

RP(FC) Nos. 274 & 347 of 2019

¶64

below the name of the institution written as Ayyappa Electricals with a date, 10.05.2018. It was recited in Ext.A10 that Sri.P.Sathyanarayanan left Ayyappa Electricals on 10.05.2018. The capacity of the person who has issued Ext.A10 on behalf of Ayyappa Electricals, being not mentioned in Ext.A10, this Court is declined to treat it as an authentic document. Therefore, the contention that the father of the respondent left his employment and thereafter is looked after by the respondent is devoid of any merits. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that respondent’s father was aged about 78 years at the relevant time when the impugned order was passed. Therefore, the view possibly be drawn was that the respondent's father is not getting sufficient income for sustenance from the job he is holding at present.

¶65

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is suffering from some ailments and the prescriptions and medical bills produced by her and marked in evidence as Exts.B1 to B36, would establish that. The records of the case are not made available to this Court. From the discussion made by the court below about Exts.B1 to B36 in the impugned order, this Court is convinced that the said documents are insufficient to arrive at a finding on the nature of the illness

¶66

RP(FC) Nos. 274 & 347 of 2019

¶67

-:9:-

¶68

suffered by the petitioner and her inability to earn income. The doctor who had treated her at the relevant period was also not examined. In the above context that the court below was reluctant to rely on Exts.B1 to B36.

¶69

The court below has taken the income admitted by the respondent itself as the basis for fixation of monthly maintenance allowance. The admitted gross income of the respondent being Rs.50,000/-, evenafter keeping Rs.10,000/each apart towards maintenance of the respondent and his parents, Rs.20,000/- will be available as balance sum with him.

¶70

The impugned order was passed in the year 2019 and M.C being filed in the year 2016, Rs.4,500/- ordered by the court below as monthly maintenance allowance payable from the date of the petition till the date of the order appears to this Court just and reasonable and interference is uncalled for. Rs.6,000/- was directed by the impugned order to be paid to the petitioner from the date of order. Rs.6,000/- stands ordered as monthly maintenance allowance from the date of the order appears deficient when viewed in the backdrop of the cost of living and price index prevalent then. Therefore, this Court is inclined to modify the same by enhancing it to Rs.8,000/-.

¶71

RP(FC) Nos. 274 & 347 of 2019

¶72

-:10:-

¶73

In the result, R.P.(F.C) No.274 of 2019 is dismissed and R.P.(F.C) No.347 of 2019 is allowed in part. Rs.6,000/- stands

¶74

ordered as monthly maintenance allowance from the date of the impugned order is modified to Rs.8,000/-.

¶75

sd/- MARY JOSEPH JUDGE

¶76

NAB

S.Sanjeev v. Janani K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sanjeev v. Janani K

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

Anil Kumar, S/O. Bhadran, Vs Sub Inspector of Police

K.C.Joseph Vs Federal Bank Ltd.

Ramachandran Nair Vs Bhagheeradhi Amma and Others

Janani K Vs Sanjeev

Shyja Vs Janu

Baby Anto Vs High Toughened Glasses LLP