Revisions challenging the Family Court's maintenance order under Sections 19(4) Cr.P.C. dismissed. The High Court held the quantum of Rs.10,000 for the wife and Rs.5,000 for the child reasonable given the respondent's bank salary, declining interference.
Both revised petitions were dismissed with no enhancement of maintenance.
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 A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1944
RPFC NO. 177 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC.NO.133/2018 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
REJULAL K.V.
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.DAMODARAN V.V., PRASADAM, EDACHERI,
PALLIKUNNU P.O., PUZHATHI AMSOM, KANNUR-670004.
BY ADVS.
ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)
SHRI. RAJ CAROLIN V.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1RARIMA R.
AGED 31 YEARS
D/O.RAMDAS P., RAREERAM, POOKOTH NADA,
TALIPARAMBA P.O., TALIPARAMBA AMSOM,
TRICHAMBARAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR-670141.
2ARYADARSHAN,
AGED 4 YEARS
S/O.RARIMA R., (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER,
RARIMA R., D/O.RAMDAS P., AGED 31 YEARS, RAREERAM,
POOKOTH NADA, TALIPARAMBA P.O., TALIPARAMBA AMSOM,
TRICHAMBARAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR-670141.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.SATHEESH
SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.10.2022, ALONG WITH RPFC.200/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC NOS. 177 & 200 OF 2020
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1944
RPFC NO. 200 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC.NO.133/2018 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR
PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:
1RARIMA R.
AGED 32 YEARS
D/O. RAMADAS P, “RAREERAM”, POOKOTH NADA,
TALIPARAMBA P.O, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT-
670 141
2ARYA DARSHAN,
AGED 4 YEARS
S/O. RARIMA R, “RAREERAM”, POOKOTH NADA,
TALIPARAMBA P.O, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT-
670 141, REP. BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER: RARIMA R,
D/O. RAMADAS P, AGED 32 YEARS , “RAREERAM”,
POOKOTH NADA,TALIPARAMBA P.O, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670 141
BY ADVS.
V.T.MADHAVANUNNI
SRI.V.A.SATHEESH
RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER:
REJULAL K.V.
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. V.V. DAMODARAN, AGED 34 YEARS, MANAGER,
BANK OF INDIA, MAROTTICHAL BRANCH, MAROTTICHAL P.O,
THRISSUR-680 014, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT ‘PRASADAM’,
EDACHERI, PALLIKKUNNU P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 004
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)
SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.10.2022, ALONG WITH RPFC.177/2020, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC NOS. 177 & 200 OF 20203
ORDER
R.P.(FC).No.200/2020 is a petition filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, seeking enhancement of maintenance granted by the Family Court, as per order in M.C.No.133/2018, dated 9.3.2020. The respondent herein is the respondent in the above M.C.
respondent in R.P.(FC).No.200/2020, challenging the same order, on the ground that the same is on higher side.
Court, under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’ hereinafter), claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- to the first petitioner (wife) and Rs.15,000/- to the second petitioner, the minor child, aged 2
years (2018). According to the petitioners, they did not have their own means for survival and the respondent had been working as an employee of Bank of
RPFC NOS. 177 & 200 OF 20204
India and has been getting Rs.75,000/- per month as the income.
RPFC NOS. 177 & 200 OF 2020
5
the first petitioner does not deserve any maintenance, as she has been residing separately from the company of the respondent, without any justification and also she had filed 13 cases till this date and accordingly put the respondent in trouble. He conceded that the maintenance insofar as the minor child is concerned, the respondent is ready to pay. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the maintenance granted in favour of the first petitioner is excessive and the law does not permit more amount, than the amount for mere sustenance, to have a luxurious life.
RPFC NOS. 177 & 200 OF 2020
6
petitioners on the assertion that the respondent has been getting Rs.1,00,000/-, can be considered by the Family Court, on merits.
In this matter, admittedly, the respondent is a person, who has been working in a nationalized bank and has been getting a fair income, as detailed above. In such a case, grant of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/-, by the Family Court could be held as reasonable and I am not inclined to make any interference in this matter. Hence, both revisions fail and are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE
Bb
//True copy//
PA to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Family Court's maintenance order of Rs.10,000 for the wife and Rs.5,000 for the minor child.
Whether the quantum of maintenance granted by the Family Court is reasonable given the income of the respondent.
REJULAL K.V.
RARIMA R.
ARYA DARSHAN
A. BADHARUDEEN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court