Dismissed

Jaseentha George @ Jessy Geroge v. T.K.Philip

Kerala HC8 Jun 2022RPFC/154/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the wife's challenge to the Family Court's dismissal of her maintenance claim. The Court held that the petitioner possessed sufficient means from her rubber tree income and family deposits to maintain herself.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the Family Court's order denying monthly maintenance.

Jaseentha George @ Jessy Geroge Vs T.K.Philip — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

RPFC NO. 154 OF 2016

¶6

MC 21/2014 OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPPALAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶8

JASEENTHA GEORGE @ JESSY GEROGE
AGED 53 YEARS
53 YEARS,D/O.K.V. GEORGE,VI/333,THAYYIL PEEDIKAYIL
VEEDU,EDAN HOME, ARAYANKODE,THENKARA AMSOM AND
POST,MANNARKAD TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.R.SREEHARI

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1T.K.PHILIP
65 YEARS,S/O. MATHAI VARGHESE,THAYYIL PEEDIKAYIL
VEEDU,CHUNKATHARA, EDAKKARA,NILAMBUR, ERNAD
TALUK,MALAPPURAM-679 329.

¶11

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

¶12

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

RPFC NO. 154 OF 2016

¶14

-2-

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(Dated this the 8^th day of June 2022)

¶17

The petitioner/wife filed M.C. No.21 of 2014 before

¶18

the Family Court, Ottappalam claiming monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/.

¶19

The case of the petitioner before the Family Court

¶20

in brief is as follows: The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 16.1.1983 at St.George Malankara Catholic Church, Chungathara. Two children were born in the wedlock. Due to difference of opinion and harassment from the side of the respondent, they started living separately from May 1998 onwards. From that day onwards, no amount is given as maintenance to the petitioner. She filed O.P. No.257 of 2007 before the Family Court, Palakkad and obtained

¶21

RPFC NO. 154 OF 2016

¶22

divorce in the year 2007. She has no income, though she

¶23

owns 4 acres and 89 cents of land which contains some

¶24

rubber trees. She gets Rs.3,000/- per month as income from the said land. The respondent is a pensioner getting Rs.5,000/- as pension. He is getting Rs.15,000/- per month as rent from the building rented to the tenants. He had sold his family property and obtained Rs.75,00,000/-, which is deposited in the bank and getting Rs.1,00,000/- as income from the Bank deposit. Thus, she claimed a monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/-.

¶25

The respondent filed counter affidavit admitting the marriage and paternity of children. The respondent was employed in Muscat from 1984 onwards. In 1987, the brother of the petitioner informed him that 5½ acres of land consisting of rubber trees is to be purchased in the

¶26

RPFC NO. 154 OF 2016

¶27

-4-

¶28

name of the petitioner and he will look after the same. On the said assurance, the property was purchased in the name of the petitioner. Thereafter, the attitude of the petitioner changed and she was leading a luxurious life. The money he used to sent to the petitioner was used to plant 1200 rubber trees in the property. The petitioner is getting huge income from the rubber trees. The respondent has so many ailments like blood pressure, sugar, cholesterol, liver cirrhosis etc. and he needs huge amount for medical expenses. Since the petitioner is earning income, she is not entitled to claim maintenance from him.

¶29

Before the Family Court, the petitioner was examined as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P15. The respondent himself got examined as RW1 and he produced Exts.D1 to D13 series. A Commission was deputed by the

¶30

RPFC NO. 154 OF 2016

¶31

-5-

¶32

Family court, who filed Ext.C1 report.

¶33

The Family court, by the impugned order,

¶34

dismissed the said petition holding that the petitioner is able to maintain herself as she is earning income from 1200 rubber trees. Aggrieved by the same, this Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/wife.

¶35

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is true that the petitioner admitted before the court that she owns 4 acres and 89 cents of land, which contains some rubber trees. But the income derived is only Rs.3,000/- per month from the property. She has to look after her son, who is studying in Bangalore and the amount she gets from the property is not sufficient to maintain herself. The respondent being a pensioner and having huge deposit in Bank, is liable to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to her. The

¶36

RPFC NO. 154 OF 2016

¶37

Family court, without understanding the real issue in

¶38

question and taking note of the fact stated in Ext.C1 report that the 1200 rubber trees planted in the property, are being tapped now, dismissed the petition.

¶39

The Family court came to the finding that the petitioner would get at least Rs.22,000/- per month from 1100 trees, as she has admitted before the court that she was getting Rs.3,000/- per month from 150 trees. The counsel submitted that the court below was not justified in having its own calculation when there was no evidence before the court that 1100 rubber trees were yielding and she was getting income out of it.

¶40

Though notice was published in Newspaper as per the orders of this court, none appears for the respondent.

¶41

The petitioner/wife has admitted before the court

¶42

RPFC NO. 154 OF 2016

¶43

-7-

¶44

that she owns 4 acres and 89 cents of land, but her contention is that she is getting only Rs.3,000/- per month from the same. Initially the Family court, vide order dated 30.10.2014 granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/per month to the petitioner from the date of petition. The said order was challenged by the petitioner, as well as the respondent in R.P. (F.C.) No.74 of 2015 and R.P.(F.C.) No.191 of 2015. This court by judgment dated 5.6.2015, set aside the order of the Family Court and remanded the same for fresh consideration after affording both parties to adduce evidence. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed. After the remand by this court, Exts.P1 to P15 were produced and a Commission was taken, who filed Ext.C1 report. The Commissioner, in his report stated that at the time of inspection she could find 1100 rubber trees,

¶45

RPFC NO. 154 OF 2016

¶46

-8-

¶47

but she was not able to assess the exact income from the rubber plantation without the assistance of an expert. It was also stated in the report that tapping is still being done in the plantation. The petitioner filed objection to Ext.C1

¶48

report. But she did not take steps to examine the Advocate Commissioner before the court. The respondent produced Ext.D1 extract statement of account from 13.2.2006 to 18.2.2015 of South Indian Bank Ltd. in respect of the account maintained by the petitioner to show that the petitioner was getting sufficient income on the sale of latex and that she is not entitled to claim maintenance from him. A perusal of Ext.D1 shows that substantial income was being received through account transfer from Glenview

¶49

Rubber Company (P) Ltd., Mumbai for the sale of latex. It is seen that on many occasions she was receiving more than

¶50

RPFC NO. 154 OF 2016

¶51

-9-

¶52

Rs.30,000/- on each transfer by the company. In view of Ext.D1 and the Commissioner’s Report Ext.C1, it can be concluded that the petitioner is having sufficient income to maintain herself. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent. The Family court was justified in dismissing the petition relying on the evidence produced on the side of the respondent as D1, oral evidence as well as Ext.C1 report of the Commissioner. There is no illegality or impropriety warranting interference in the order passed by the Family Court and hence, the R.P(F.C) is dismissed.

¶53

sd/-

¶54

BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE

¶55

dl/

Jaseentha George @ Jessy Geroge v. T.K.Philip

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaseentha George @ Jessy Geroge v. T.K.Philip

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

Mukundadasan T. Vs the Authorised Officer

Mohammed Ali Vs the District Collector of Thrissur

Sha Gopinath Vs Deepak Raman Nair

Shakeena K Vs Abdul Rahiman

Gopakumar Vs Geethu.T.Balan

Basheer Vs Mymoona