Dismissed

Lalappan v. Jessy

Kerala HC2 Nov 2023RPFC/13/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging a Family Court order awarding maintenance under Section 125 CrPC to the wife and children. The court held the awarded amounts were reasonable, no error was found, and the revisioner failed to substantiate claims of adultery or inability to maintain.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; order directs registry to forward copy to Family Court for further proceedings.

Lalappan Vs Jessy — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶5

RPFC NO. 13 OF 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT MC 239/2012 OF FAMILY

¶7

COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶9

LALAPPAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O EYOB, NOW RESIDING AT ULLAHAYIL HOSUE, VATTIYAMTHODU P.O., MATTARA, KANNUR.

¶10

BY ADV SRI.R.GOPAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 JESSY, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O LUCY, ASHISH NIVAS, G.V.47, TC.11/1643, PLAMOODU, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001.

¶13

2 AJITHLAL, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O LALPPAN, RESIDING AT ASHISH NIVAS, G.V.47, TC.11/1643, PLAMOODU, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

3 ATHIRA MOL V., AGED 18 YEARS, D/O LALPPAN, RESIDING AT ASHISH NIVAS, G.V.47, TC.11/1643, PLAMOODU, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶15

4 ANJANA MOL, AGED 12 YEARS, D/O LALPPAN, RESIDINT AT ASHISH NIVAS, G.V.47, TC.11/1643, PLAMOODU, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶16

5 AJAY LAL, AGED 12 YEARS, S/O LALAPPAN, RESIDING AT ASHISH NIVAS, G.V.47, TC.11/1643, PLAMOODU, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. (MINORS 4 & 5 REPRESENTED BY THIER MOTHER IST PETITIONER)-695001.

¶17

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

RPFC NO. 13 OF 2016

¶20

(Dated this the 2^nd day of November, 2023)

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The revision petition is filed challenging the order passed in M.C.No.239/2012 of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram directing the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.3,000/- to the 1^st respondent/his wife, Rs.2,500/- to the 3^rd respondent/his daughter and Rs.2,000/- each to the respondents 4 and 5/his daughter and son, respectively, and Rs.2,500/towards medical expenses of the 2^nd respondent/his son. The revision petitioner was the respondent and the respondents were the petitioners before the Family Court.

¶23

Brief Facts

¶24

The respondents filed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'Code') against the revision petitioner on the assertion that the 1^st respondent got married to the revision petitioner on 30.12.1991. The respondents 2 to 5 are the children born in the said wedlock. The respondents are unable to maintain

¶25

RPFC NO. 13 OF 2016

¶26

¶27

themselves. The revision petitioner is a carpenter by profession and earning Rs.30,000/- per mensem. The revision petitioner has willfully refused to maintain the respondents. Hence, the respondents are entitled to

¶28

maintenance as claimed in the application.

¶29

The revision petitioner contested the application by filing a written objection and refuting the allegations. He admitted the marriage and paternity of the children. However, he contended that the 1^st respondent is a tailor and is earning a monthly income of Rs.25,000/-. He admitted that the 2^nd respondent is undergoing treatment

¶30

for cancer at the Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. It was his defence that the 1^st respondent had filed false complaints against him and his tools of expertise have been attached. The 1^st respondent is living in adultery and is, therefore, not entitled for maintenance. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

¶31

In the trial, the 1^st respondent was examined as PW1 and the revision petitioner was examined RW1 and Exts.R1 to R5 were confronted and marked through him.

¶32

¶33

RPFC NO. 13 OF 2016

¶34

The Family Court, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned order partly allowed the application by directing the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- to the 1^st respondent, Rs.2,500/- to the 3^rd respondent, Rs.2,000/- each to the respondents 4 and 5 from the date of petition and Rs.2,500/- towards the medical expenses of the 2^nd respondent.

¶35

It is aggrieved by the order; the revision petition is filed. Although the revision petition was filed as early as in 2016, service is not complete on the respondents. Therefore, this Court has proceeded to hear the revision petition on admission.

¶36

Heard Sri.R.Gopan, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner on admission.

¶37

The revision petitioner admits that the 1^st respondent is his wife and also the paternity of respondents 2 to 5. The respondents' case is that, although the revision petitioner is a carpenter and earning Rs.30,000/- per

¶38

RPFC NO. 13 OF 2016

¶39

¶40

mensem, he has refused to maintain them.

¶41

The revision petitioner's defence is that the 1^st respondent has filed frivolous complaints against him and his tools of expertise have been attached, therefore, he cannot carry on his avocation. Also, the 1^st respondent is a tailor and is earning Rs.25,000/- per month and she is living in adultery. Hence, she is not entitled to maintenance. Therefore, the application may be dismissed.

¶42

The revision petitioner and the 1^st respondent got themselves examined as RW1 and PW1. The 1^st respondent confronted and marked Exts.R1 to R5 in evidence. Ext.R1 proves that the 2^nd respondent was undergoing treatment for cancer at the Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.R2 establishes that the jurisdictional Magistrate had passed a protection order against the revision petitioner under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act in favour of the 1^st respondent. Ext.R3 is a complaint filed by the 1^st respondent against the revision petitioner alleging him to

¶43

¶44

RPFC NO. 13 OF 2016

¶45

have violated Ext.R2 order. Ext.R4 is a remand report which shows that the revision petitioner was remanded to the judicial custody.

¶46

The revision petitioner's trump card is that the 1^st respondent is employed and that she is living in adultery. Other than for the bald assertion made by the revision petitioner, there is no material on record to substantiate the contention. The revision petitioner has also not filed any petition to dissolve his marriage with the 1^st respondent. He also does not dispute the fact that he is a carpenter and that respondents 2 to 5 are his children. It is also on record that the 2^nd respondent is a cancer patient.

¶47

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (‘Code’ for short), is conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial sufferings of women and children, who are constrained to leave the matrimonial home for the reasons provided in Chapter IX of the Code.

¶48

It is trite that an able bodied person is statutorily

¶49

RPFC NO. 13 OF 2016

¶50

¶51

bound to maintain his wife and children, [read Anju Garg & Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 805].

¶52

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the pleadings and materials on record, I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. The maintenance awarded by the family Court is reasonable and justifiable.

¶53

The revision petition is devoid of any merit and is hence, consequentially dismissed. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of the order to the Family Court for further proceedings.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS

JUDGE

rkc/02.11.23

Lalappan v. Jessy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalappan v. Jessy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohini P.V Vs Thahira M

A.Chowdhuri Vs the Food Inspector,Mavelikkara Cicle

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Pilitha Vs Anish

N.Vasavan Vs State

N Chellappan Pillai Vs State of Kerala