The Full Bench allowed the revision petition partly. It set aside the maintenance awarded to the wife but upheld the amount for the minor son, remitting the wife's case for fresh consideration due to salary discrepancies.
Maintenance of Rs.3,000 to the wife set aside; Rs.2,000 to minor child upheld; case remanded with 6-month timeline.
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 BASANT BALAJI
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022/24TH JYAISHTA, 1944
R.P.(F.C.) NO.460 OF 2015
(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.08.2015 IN MC 3/2014 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD)
REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:
S.VELLINKIRI, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O SUNDARAM, RESIDING AT CHEERANAYIKKANPALAM, VADAVALLY, COIMBATORE DISTRICT-7, TAMILNADU.
BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 P.KARTHIKA, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O PECHIYAPPAN,
2 ABHIKRISHNA (MINOR), AGED 3 1/2 YEARS, S/O.P.KARTHIKA, (THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN MOTHER THE IST RESPONDENT), BOTH ARE RESIDING AT ABHINAYA NIVAS, ANDIMADOM, KADUKKAMKUNNAM P.O., PALAKKAD-678 005.
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.(F.C.) No.460 of 2015
2
ORDER
(Dated: 14th June, 2022)
The counter petitioner/husband in M.C.No.3 of 2014
on the files of the Family Court, Palakkad is the revision petitioner herein (the parties are referred to as they appeared in the court below). He is challenging the order directing him to pay monthly maintenance at
the rate of Rs.3,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.2,000/- to the 2nd petitioner from the date of petition.
petitioner is the son of the respondent. The marriage between the spouses was solemnised on 02.06.2010 at Panchaliyamman Hall at Palakkad and they lived together as husband and wife and in the wedlock 2nd petitioner is born. The marital life was very cordial for six months, thereafter the respondent started to consume alcohol and
R.P.(F.C.) No.460 of 2015
3
used to quarrel with the 1st petitioner and beat her. When the harassment became unbearable, the 1st petitioner along with the 2nd petitioner came to her parental house and after mediation talks she came back to the matrimonial home. On 26.12.2012, the respondent again quarreled with the 1st petitioner and she was sent along with her parents, thereafter he neglected to maintain the petitioners. They are unable to maintain themselves. The respondent is working in Tamilnadu Agricultural Department and is getting Rs.16,000/- per month. Hence she claimed Rs.5,000/- and Rs.7,500/- as maintenance respectively.
R.P.(F.C.) No.460 of 2015
4
the 1st petitioner came back to the parental home and on 26.12.2012, he sent out the 1st petitioner with her parents. According to the respondent, the 1st petitioner does not like to live with his parents and she compelled him to leave them and start living with the parents of the 1st petitioner, which he declined. Therefore, she left the company without any valid reason. He denied the fact that he is getting Rs.16,000/- per month. He admits that he is a casual labourer in Tamilnadu
Agricultural Department and getting only Rs.4,000/- per month.
R.P.(F.C.) No.460 of 2015
5
petitioner from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition is filed by the respondent/husband.
issued by the Department of Vegetable Crops, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, in respect of the
R.P.(F.C.) No.460 of 2015
6
respondent. The said document shows that he earns Rs.200/- per day and works for 5 days and thus the monthly amount he receives is Rs.4,000/-. Though the genuineness of Ext.D1 was challenged by the petitioner, the family court accepted the same. As per Ext.D1, the monthly salary is only Rs.4,000/- per month. There is no other evidence before the court below to prove that the respondent is earning Rs.16,000/- per month. Having accepted Ext.D1 and the amount of Rs.4,000/- as monthly salary, the Family Court was not justified in directing the respondent to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the 1st petitioner. The said finding is not in consonance with Ext.D1 salary certificate. The amount awarded as maintenance to the 2nd petitioner being Rs.2,000/- does not warrant any interference taking note of the requirement a child needs. Hence the maintenance awarded by the Family Court requires interference in respect of the 1st petitioner alone. In view of the above
R.P.(F.C.) No.460 of 2015
7
finding, I set aside the maintenance amount awarded to the 1st petitioner at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month alone. As far as the maintenance amount to the 2nd petitioner at the rate of Rs.2,000/- is concerned, I accept the finding of the Family Court. One of the main contention raised by the revision petitioner is that, the wife is living separately without any sufficient reason and the same has not been properly dealt with in the order.
In the result, the revision is allowed in part and the maintenance awarded to the 1st petitioner is set aside and remitted to the Family Court for fresh consideration. I make it clear that the issue whether the wife is living separately without sufficient reason, is left open to be decided by the Family Court after affording opportunity of both the parties to adduce evidence if any. Since the M.C. is of the year 2014, there will be a further direction to dispose of the case
R.P.(F.C.) No.460 of 2015
8
within 6 months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of the order.
The R.P.(F.C.) is partly allowed.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE
ss
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the maintenance amount awarded to the wife is sustainable given the respondent's actual salary as per salary certificate.
Whether the High Court can remit the maintenance issue to the Family Court while noting a pending question about separate living.
Whether the maintenance awarded to the minor child requires interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.Vellinkiri
P.Karthika
Abhikrishna
Basant Balaji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
