Dismissed

Gopakumar v. Geethu.T.Balan

Kerala HC8 Jun 2022RPFC/233/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition challenging Family Court order directing respondent to pay maintenance to wife and minor child. High Court held impugned order warranted no interference as Family Court erred in not accepting salary certificate due to lack of examination of the issuer, and adjudication was sound on facts.

What did the court decide?

No alteration to maintenance amount awarded; petitioner's revision petition dismissed.

Gopakumar Vs Geethu.T.Balan — 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 8^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

RPFC NO. 233 OF 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 195/2013 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶7

GOPAKUMAR

¶8

AGED 34 YEARS

¶9

S/O. OLIPARAMBIL GOPI, POYYA VILLAGE, CHENTHURUTHI DESOM, P.O. MALA PALLIPURAM, PIN- 680 732, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

SRI.K.M.FIROZ,SRI.S.KANNAN SMT.M.SHAJNA, SMT.UMMUL FIDA

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 GEETHU.T.BALAN AGED 26 YEARS D/O. THEKKETHALAKKAL BALAN, MUEDATHIRINJI VILLAGE, CHETTIYAL DESOM, P.O. EDATHIRINJI, PIN- 680 122.MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

¶14

2 GAYATHRI GOPAKUMAR AGED 4 YEARS MINOR AGED 4 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT, GUARDIAN MOTHER, D/O. THEKKETHALAKKAL BALAN, AGED 26 YEARS,EDATHIRINJI VILLAGE, CHETTIYAL DESOM, P.O. EDATHIRINJI, PIN- 680 122.MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

¶15

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

¶16

R.P.(FC) No.233/2016

¶17

-2-

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The husband/respondent in M.C. No.195/2013 on the files of Family Court, Irinjalakkuda has approached this Court challenging the order directing him to pay Rs.3,000/- each to the wife and minor child.

¶20

The marriage between the 1^st petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 31.01.2011. After marriage, they lived as husband and wife at the matrimonial house. In wedlock, a female child was born and is under the custody of the 1^st petitioner. The case of the wife is that the respondent has neglected to maintain her from 10.12.2012 onwards. He is addicted to alcohol and used to torture her under the influence of alcohol. She has no source of income and is depending upon

¶21

R.P.(FC) No.233/2016

¶22

-3-

¶23

her father for livelihood. The respondent is a document writer and earns around Rs.60,000/- per month. The petitioners need Rs.5,000/- each as monthly maintenance.

¶24

The respondent filed counter-affidavit denying the entire allegations. He denied the fact that he was working as a document writer and earning Rs.60,000/- per month. His contention is that he is working as an employee in a private company, namely Campco, and getting only Rs.9,000/- as salary. His stand is that he is ready to look after the minor child and his wife, but the wife is reluctant to come and live with him. Hence, the 1^st petitioner is not entitled to claim any maintenance as she is living separately without any sufficient reason.

¶25

The petitioner was examined as PW1, and the witness was examined as PW2. The respondent got himself examined as

¶26

R.P.(FC) No.233/2016

¶27

-4-

¶28

RW1. Ext.B1 salary certificate was produced and marked on the side of the respondent. The Family Court, on appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence, came to the finding that the petitioners are entitled to maintenance and fixed the maintenance at Rs.3,000/- each.

¶29

Heard the counsel for the petitioner.

¶30

The counsel for the petitioner herein submits that

¶31

the wife has withdrawn from his company without any sufficient reason, hence, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. He is always ready and willing to take his wife and his daughter along with him, but she is so adamant to come and live with him, without any reason. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Court below has also stated in the order that she was not willing to come and live with him though she had a contention that she is ready and willing to live

¶32

R.P.(FC) No.233/2016

¶33

-5-

¶34

with the respondent, provided he stops taking alcohol. In such a circumstance, the Court below was not justified in allowing maintenance to the wife, submits the petitioner.

¶35

Along with M.C. 195/2013, O.P. 593/2013 was filed by the petitioner herein for restitution of conjugal rights. After evaluating the evidence adduced, the Family Court dismissed the same against which an appeal was filed as M.A. 494/2016 before this Court. This Court by judgment dated 25.05.2016 dismissed the same. Hence, the petitioner cannot contend that the wife was living separately without any sufficient reason.

¶36

During cross-examination of RW1, the husband stated before the Court that he needs at least Rs.5,000/- for his monthly expense. And when a specific question was asked whether the same amount is required by the wife too, he answered in the positive. Though Ext.B1 certificate was

¶37

R.P.(FC) No.233/2016

¶38

-6-

¶39

produced by the respondent to contend that he was earning Rs.9,000/- per month as salary, the person who issued such certificate was not examined and it is not properly proved. Hence, the Family Court did not take into consideration Ext.B1. The respondent does not have a contention that he is not ablebodied or unable to do any work and earn income. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot contend that he is not entitled to pay maintenance to the petitioners at the rate of Rs.3,000/- each. At the same time, the petitioner fairly conceded that he is not disputing the quantum of maintenance awarded to the minor child. He is only aggrieved by the maintenance awarded to 1^st petitioner.

¶40

In the consideration of the facts and circumstances of

¶41

the case and especially the deposition of the respondent that the wife also needs Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance, I am of the view that the impugned order does not warrant any

¶42

R.P.(FC) No.233/2016

¶43

-7-

¶44

interference. There is no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Family Court.

¶45

R.P.(FC) No.233/2016 is dismissed.

Sd/-

BASANT BALAJI

JUDGE

jjj

Gopakumar v. Geethu.T.Balan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopakumar v. Geethu.T.Balan

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

Jaseentha George @ Jessy Geroge Vs T.K.Philip

Basheer Vs Mymoona