Dismissed

Aneeshkumar v. Bindhu R

Kerala HC11 Sept 2023RPFC/168/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a revision petition challenging a Family Court order awarding maintenance to the petitioner's wife and daughter. The High Court rejected claims of unemployment, relying on the petitioner's admitted employment history abroad, and upheld the obligation to maintain the family.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed with no interference in the impugned order of maintenance.

Aneeshkumar Vs Bindhu R — 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

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 20TH BHADRA, 1945

¶5

RPFC NO. 168 OF 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 366/2012 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:

¶7

ANEESHKUMAR

¶8

S/O.THANKAPPAN, "SRIMANI MANGALAM", NOORANADU POST,
ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

BY ADVS.
SRI.K.SASIKUMAR
SRI.S.ARAVIND
SRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY
SRI.R.ROHITH
SRI.P.S.RAGHUKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶11

1 BINDHU R PAVITHRAM HOUSE, VISHNU NAGAR, DHONI POST, PALAKKAD678009.

¶12

2NAVAMI, D/O.BINDU
'PAVITHRAM HOUSE, VISHNU NAGAR, DHONI POST, PALAKKAD-
678009. REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN, MOTHER, THE 1ST
RESPONDENT BINDU R

¶13

BY ADVS.
SMT.ASHA BABU

¶14

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

R.P(F.C.) NO. 168 OF 2016 2

¶16

Dated this the 11^th day of September, 2023

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The revision petition is filed assailing the order passed by the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.No.366/2012. The revision petitioner was the respondent and the respondents were the petitioners in the above maintenance case.

¶19

The respondents – the wife and child of the revision petitioner – had filed the maintenance case against the revision petitioner, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for an order of maintenance @ Rs.8000/- and 7000/- per mensem, respectively. The respondents had averred in the petition that the revision petitioner was married to the first respondent on 27.8.2009 as per Hindu religious rites. The second respondent was born in the wedlock. The revision petitioner used to ill treat the first respondent and

¶20

R.P(F.C.) NO. 168 OF 2016 3

¶21

threatened to kill her. It was the third marriage of the revision petitioner. In fact, he attempted to marry another lady namely Geethanjali. Due to the matrimonial cruelty meted out on the first respondent by the revision petitioner, she was constrained to leave the matrimonial home. The revision petitioner has willfully refused to maintain the respondents, despite having sufficient means. Hence, the respondents are entitled for an order of maintenance.

¶22

The maintenance case was resisted by the revision petitioner through a counter statement, inter alia, contending that, it was the first respondent, who, without sufficient reason or cause, left the matrimonial home. At the time of marriage, the revision petitioner was working in Oman. He had taken the first respondent with him to Oman on 11.11.2009 and returned to India on 11.02.2010. Thereafter, the revision petitioner joined a private company in Thiruvananthapuram. The first respondent had refused to mingle with the revision

¶23

R.P(F.C.) NO. 168 OF 2016 4

¶24

petitioner’s relatives. On 12.03.2012, without the knowledge and consent of the revision petitioner, the first respondent left the matrimonial home without any valid reason. The revision petitioner is ready to maintain the second respondent as per his status and position in life. He has an age old mother, who is dependent on him. Hence, the petition against the first respondent may be dismissed.

¶25

The first respondent and the revision petitioner were examined as PW1 and CPW1, respectively. The revision petitioner marked Exts.B1 and B1(a) in evidence.

¶26

The Family Court, after evaluating the pleadings and materials on record, ordered the petition, by directing the revision petitioner to pay the respondents a monthly maintenance of Rs.5000/- and 4000/-, respectively, from the date of petition i.e. from 6.9.2012.

¶27

It is aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed.

¶28

R.P(F.C.) NO. 168 OF 2016 5

¶29

When the revision petition came up for admission on 7.4.2016, this Court had ordered notice before admission to the respondents and stayed the execution of the impugned order, subject to the condition that the revision petitioner remits 50% of the amount as per the impugned order within a period of six weeks, and continue to pay maintenance for the respondents at the rate fixed in the impugned order.

¶30

Subsequently, when the revision petition came up for consideration on 31.1.2019, on the basis of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the interim order was not complied with, this Court vacated the interim order dated 7.4.2016 and permitted the respondents to initiate recovery proceedings as against the petitioner.

¶31

Heard; K.Sasikumar, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Smt.Asha Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the revision

¶33

R.P(F.C.) NO. 168 OF 2016 6

¶34

petitioner vehemently argued that the respondents have not proved the income of the revision petitioner. The amount of maintenance ordered by the Family Court is excessive and unreasonable. The revision petitioner does not have means to pay any amount as maintenance to the respondents, since he is unemployed. Hence, the revision petition may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside.

¶35

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the revision petition. She argued that the revision petitioner had categorically admitted in page No.2 of his cross-examination that he is an Engineer by profession and was employed in Oman, and drawing a salary of Rs.1,38,000/- per month. Moreover, the revision petitioner’s defence that he has to look after his mother is also false because his mother is a retired teacher and is getting a monthly pension of Rs.15,000/-. Furthermore, the revision petitioner has admitted that he was employed even after his return

¶36

R.P(F.C.) NO. 168 OF 2016 7

¶37

from Oman and has a bank account in the Federal Bank.

¶38

As on today, an amount of Rs.7,75,000/- is the arrears of maintenance payable by the revision petitioner to the respondents. The revision petitioner is absconding and coercive proceedings are pending. There is no bonafides in the revision petition and may be dismissed.

¶39

The point is whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order.

¶40

The revision petitioner admits his marriage with the first respondent and the paternity of the second respondent.

¶41

The cardinal grounds of attack of the revision petitioner is that the first respondent left the matrimonial home without any sufficient cause or reason, that the revision petitioner is unemployed and the first respondent is employed in the Nirbhaya Project and, therefore, has sufficient means to maintain herself.

¶42

Exts.B1 and B1(a) documents prove that the revision petitioner was employed abroad. He has also

¶43

R.P(F.C.) NO. 168 OF 2016 8

¶44

admitted in his counter statement that he had taken the first respondent along with him to Oman on 11.11.2009 and returned to India on 11.2.2010. Indisputably, the revision petitioner has not instituted any proceedings for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, to substantiate that the first respondent is living separately without sufficient cause. The revision petitioner also does not dispute the fact that he is an Engineer by profession.

¶45

It is trite; an able bodied person is bound to maintain his wife and child, [read Anju Garg & another v. Deepak Kumar Garg 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 805].

¶46

Going by the materials on record and the oral testimonies of PW1 and CPW1, especially taking into account the fact that the revision petitioner is an Engineer by profession and he was employed abroad, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the order passed by the Family Court, directing the revision petitioner to pay the maintenance to the respondents at the rates of Rs.5000/- and 4000/- per

¶47

R.P(F.C.) NO. 168 OF 2016 9

¶48

month.

¶49

The Family Court, after a threadbare analysis of the pleadings and materials on record, has rightly concluded that the revision petitioner is bound to maintain his wife and daughter.

¶50

On an appreciation of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the materials on record and the impugned order, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition is devoid of any merits and is hence dismissed.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

¶53

rmm11/9/2023

Aneeshkumar v. Bindhu R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneeshkumar v. Bindhu R

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

Athira Udayan Vs Akash Pushparajan

Prestige Marketing Division Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Akash Pushparajan Vs Athiraudayan

Ratheesh Vs Pathanamthitta Dist. Co-Op. Bank and

Rajasree Vs Santhakumari

Sudheer Sethumadhavan Vs Nandini (Minor)