Allowed

Gopinathan v. Raji @ Rajeswari

Kerala HC2 Jun 2022RPFC/319/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition, the Kerala High Court reduced the monthly maintenance awarded to a wife from Rs.10,000 to Rs.8,000. The Court held that the original amount was exorbitant given the husband's admitted income as a tea-master and corrected it to align with his earning capacity and past transfer history.

What did the court decide?

The monthly maintenance granted at the rate of Rs.10,000 is re-fixed at the rate of Rs.8,000 per month from the date of the petition.

Gopinathan Vs Raji @ Rajeswari — 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

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

RPFC NO. 319 OF 2015

¶6

MC 15/2012 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶8

GOPINATHAN, AGED 51 YEARS
S/O.AYINIPPULLY LATE NARAYANAN, THIRUVATHRA
VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR.REPRESENTED
BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDERA.N.MANOJ KUMAR,
S/O.AYINIPPULLY LATE NARAYANAN,THIRUVATHRA VILLAGE
AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR.

¶9

BY ADV SRI.RAJIT/ADV.LEKSHMI R NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

RAJI @ RAJESWARI
AGED 45 YEARS
D/O.KANDAEASSERY PRABHAKARAN, PARAKKAD DESOM,NORTH
ELAVALLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

ADV LEKSHMI P NAIR FOR THE PETITIONER

¶14

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

RPFC 319/2015.

-2-

ORDER

(Dated this the 2^nd day of June 2022)

¶19

Aggrieved by the order in M.C. No.15 of 2012

¶20

awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner/wife, the husband has filed this revision petition.

¶21

The case of the petitioner/wife is as follows:- The

¶22

marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 1.5.1988 and two children were born in the

¶23

wedlock. At the time of marriage, the petitioner/wife was provided with 7 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.40,000/-. Due to the cruelty on the part of the respondent/husband, the marital relationship got strained. The respondent is running a business in Malaysia and

¶24

drawing an income of Rs.75,000/- per month. But the respondent is not maintaining the petitioner/wife and hence

¶25

RPFC 319/2015.

¶26

-3-

¶27

prayed for maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per

¶28

month.

¶29

The respondent admitted the marriage and paternity

¶30

of the children. According to him, he is working only as a tea-master in a tea shop in Malaysia. He is not earning Rs.75,000/- per month. But, he is earning Rs.600/- per day. The evidence consisted of oral evidence of PW1, who is the petitioner and marked Exts.A1 to A3. RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B4 series were marked on the respondent’s side. The Family court allowed the petition and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of the petition.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent.

¶32

The counsel for the petitioner herein/husband submits that the amount awarded by the Family Court is

¶33

RPFC 319/2015.

¶34

-4excessive and he is earning only Rs.600/- per day being a

¶35

tea-master in a tea shop. The Family court heavily relied on the amounts sent by the petitioner during 2007 – 2010 and taking into consideration of those amounts, Rs.10,000/- is fixed which is not correct. The petitioner used to send gold articles and valuable to the respondent and he has given 30 sovereign of gold at the time of marriage of elder daughter. He has spent all his life savings for the welfare of his wife and family. The amount which he used to send through money transfer was for the maintenance of the wife as well as two children. But the court below, without considering these facts, fixed the quantum of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- as claimed by her. The amount of Rs.10,000/was being sent in 2007-2010, which would show that the petitioner and the minor children were taking the amount

¶36

RPFC 319/2015.

¶37

-5-

¶38

proportionately i.e., Rs.3,300/- each. Hence, the claim of Rs.10,000/- is exorbitant.

¶39

The petitioner does not have a case that the respondent has any income to maintain herself. His only contention is that he was sending the money through money transfer and there was no occasion for the respondent to claim maintenance. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is working in Malaysia. According to the petitioner he is working as a tea-master, whereas the respondent’s case is that he is the owner of a tea shop earning Rs.75,000/- per month. The petitioner in his examination, admits that he is earning Rs.600/- per day and it also proved through Ext.B2 series that he used to send money through Western Union Money Transfer regularly and on one occasion the amount he sent went upto Rs.40,000/-. Ext.B2 was

¶40

produced by the petitioner to prove that the fact

¶41

RPFC 319/2015.

¶42

-6-

¶43

that he was sending money regularly to maintain his wife and children, but after separation in 2011 no amounts were sent. The said document proved beyond doubt that he had sufficient income to maintain the family. The Family court therefore taking into consideration of Ext.B2, fixed the maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month.

¶44

Though the petitioner admitted that he is earning Rs.600/- per day, other than this evidence there is no other proof before the court to enter into a finding that he was earning more amounts than he admits. According to the petitioner the income would come to Rs.18,000/- per month. In such a situation, the Family court ought not have fixed the maintenance for the petitioner at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month, as the money he used to send during 2007-2010 was to the petitioner as well as the children. Taking into consideration of the entire facts and

¶45

RPFC 319/2015.

¶46

-7-

¶47

circumstances of the case and the cost of living which the petitioner has to incur, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.8,000/- would be sufficient for the petitioner.

¶48

In the result, this Petition is allowed and the amount of maintenance granted at the rate of RS.10,000/- is re-fixed at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month from the date of petition. The amounts already deposited, if any, pursuant to the orders of this court can be adjusted towards the arrears.

¶49

¶50

BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE

¶51

dl/

Gopinathan v. Raji @ Rajeswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopinathan v. Raji @ Rajeswari

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

Nayana Vs Vishnu P. Naick

Jose@Renji Varghese Vs Anu Varghese

Prasanth v Vs Devika

Muhammad Shafi Vs Sheeja K.I.

M.Ramla Vs a.C.Ashraf

Nagesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala