Dismissed

Aneesh Babu N.P v. Jeeshna K.

Kerala HC26 Oct 2022RPFC/157/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision Court dismissed petition challenging maintenance award, upholding lower court's order despite petitioner's failure to deposit interim sum. Court granted prospective relief for job modification under Cr.P.C. Sec. 127 if appointment approved.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; interim stay vacated; petitioner to pay maintenance unless job approved, then apply under S. 127 Cr.P.C.

Aneesh Babu N.P Vs Jeeshna K. — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

RPFC NO. 157 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 80/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶8

ANEESH BABU N.P AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT OLACHERRY VAZHAKKATH, P.O.TALAP, KANNUR TALUK AND DISTRICT, REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS P.A.HOLDER (SISTER) ASHA N.P., D/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 46 YEARS, OLACHERY VAZHAKATH HOUSE, TALAP, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670002 BY ADVS. M.SASINDRAN SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶10

1 JEESHNA K. AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.LAKSHMANAN U., RESIDING AT UCHUMMAL HOUSE, ANAMIKA' ONDEN PARAMBA, P.O.KANNUR CIVIL STATION, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670002 2 ADINATH K. S/O.ANEESH BABU N.P., AGED 10 YEARS (MINOR) REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND JEESHNA K., D/O.LAKSHMANAN U. UCHUMMAL HOUSE, ANAMIKA' ONDEN PARAMBA, P.O.KANNUR CIVIL STATION, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670002

¶11

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

RP(FC) NO. 157 OF 2022

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Dated this the 26^th day of October, 2022

¶16

In this Revision Petition filed under Section 19(4) of

¶17

the Family Court Act, 1984, the Revision Petitioner is the respondent in M.C No. 80 of 2019 on the files of Family Court, Kannur. The respondents are the original petitioners in the above M.C.

¶18

In this matter, though notice was served upon the respondents, the respondents did not appear.

¶19

At the time of admission, as per order dated 19.09.2022, this Court directed the revision petitioner to deposit Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) out of the arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- granted, as per the order impugned, within a period of thirty days.

¶20

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that deposit as directed by this Court was not effected and the revision petitioner, who has been working abroad could not deposit the amount. Thus, as things stand now, the revision petitioner disobeyed the order of

¶21

¶22

RP(FC) NO. 157 OF 2022

¶23

this Court.

¶24

In this matter, the original petitioners, who

¶25

alleged to have no means of survival, approached the Family Court and pressed for maintenance, on the assertion that the revision petitioner has sufficient income to provide maintenance to them. The learned Family Court Judge conducted enquiry in this matter. PW1 was examined and Ext.A1 was marked on the side of the petitioner, RWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the respondent. Exts.X1 and X2 also were marked.

¶26

It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the

¶27

revision petitioner that as per the evidence rendered by RW3, the 1^st petitioner got appointed as LP School Assistant with effect from 06.06.2019 and therefore the 1^st petitioner is not entitled to get maintenance. In paragraph 17 of the order impugned, the evidence of RW3 was discussed by the Family Court. The evidence of RW3 is that as per Ext.X2, issued by RW3, the 1^st petitioner was appointed in the School on 06.06.2019 as LP School Assistant. But her appointment has not been approved by

¶28

¶29

RP(FC) NO. 157 OF 2022

¶30

the Education Department and hence no salary has been disbursed so far. In fact, even though an appointment was given that was not even approved by the Education Department and the reasons for non-approval of the appointment no t forthcoming. Therefore there is chance to approve the appointment or to reject the same. It if is rejected the respondent shall continue as jobless. Therefore at present, it cannot be held that PW1/1st petitioner in this matter is getting any income and therefore the said contention rightly found against by the Family Court. Apart from that, from the evidence of RW3, nothing substantiated to contend that the petitioners are having sufficient income to maintain themselves.

¶31

To the contrary, it is to be noticed that the

¶32

respondent has been working abroad and taking note of the said aspect and the evidence given by PW1, the Family Court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/(Rupees Six Thousand Only) to the 1^st petitioner and Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand Only) to the 2^nd petitioner. The said amount appears to be very reasonable and therefore no interference is required in the said order.

¶33

¶34

RP(FC) NO. 157 OF 2022

¶35

8. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed

¶36

and the interim order of stay shall stand vacated.

¶37

However, it is ordered that if the job of the 1^st petitioner/1st respondent herein being approved, so that she would earn from the said job, the revision petitioner can file an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., to modify the order impugned. Till such modification, if any, the revision petitioner shall pay maintenance as per the impugned order and confirmed by this Court, without fail.

¶38

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this

¶39

order to the Family Court, Kannur for information and to proceed with execution of the order without fail.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶42

SK/26.10.

Aneesh Babu N.P v. Jeeshna K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneesh Babu N.P v. Jeeshna 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

Dhanya v. @ Navya Nair Vs M/S. Shwas Homes Pvt. Ltd.

Nisar P.A Vs Jeela Nair

Nisar P. a. Vs Jeela Nair

C.S Unnikrishnakumar Vs State of Kerala

Deepak Rajan P. S. Vs Sreedevi R.

Sajju Sudheesh Vs S. Sudheesh