Allowed

Binitha v. Hareendran

Kerala HC2 Nov 2023RPFC/245/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the revision petition challenging the Family Court order on maintenance. The Court enhanced the recurring monthly maintenance for the minor petitioner studying MBBS from Rs. 7,500 to Rs. 10,000 retrospectively and Rs. 18,000 prospectively, and directed arrears payment.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance enhanced to Rs. 10,000/month (10.07.2019-10.07.2021) and Rs. 18,000/month thereafter; arrears to be paid within three months.

Binitha Vs Hareendran — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

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

¶5

RPFC NO. 245 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.07.2019 IN CRL.M.P.NO.14/2014 IN
M.C.NO.263/2007 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 BINITHA

¶9

AGED 35 YEARS, D/O. BALACHANDRAN, CHAITHRAM,
THEKKE MURI, EAST KALLADA VILLAGE,
KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2ASWIN HAREENDRAN (MINOR)
AGED 10 YEARS, S/O. HAREENDRAN, THEKKE MURI,
EAST KALLADA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
(2ND PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER (1ST
PETITIONER))
BY ADVS.
C.RAJENDRAN
B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN
R.S.SREEVIDYA
ELSAMMA JOSEPH ARACKAL

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶12

HAREENDRAN

¶13

AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. VENUGOPALAN,
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER GRADE - I, KUNNATHOOR EAST POST,
KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 540.
BY ADV N.K.SUBRAMANIAN
(AS PER ORDER DATED 25/01/2023 IN RPFC 245/2021)

¶14

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

¶15

RP(FC) NO. 245 OF 2021

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Dated this the 2^nd day of November, 2023

¶19

This revision petition has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984, challenging the order in Crl.M.P. No.14 of 2014 in M.C. No.263 of 2007 dated 10.07.2019. The revision petitioners herein are the petitioners in the above petition and the respondent herein is the respondent in the above matter, who is none other than the husband of the 1^st petitioner and the father of the 2^nd petitioner.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶21

In this matter, earlier M.C. No. 263/2007 was filed claiming maintenance by the revision petitioners/petitioners in the MC and accordingly as per order dated 31.12.2012, Rs.4,000/- per month was awarded towards maintenance to the 1^st petitioner and Rs.5,000/- per month to the 2^nd petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Crl.M.P.

¶22

RP(FC) NO. 245 OF 2021
3

¶23

No.14/2014 resorting to Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for altering the maintenance by way of enhancement on the ground that the amount granted as per the original order is insufficient. The specific case put up by the revision petitioners in the above petition is that the respondent is a person working as an Agricultural Officer, Grade-I and had been earning Rs.60,000/- per month.

¶24

Resisting the said claim, the respondent filed objection and submitted that the 1^st petitioner also is employed as a teacher in an Aided School and pointed out the gross salary of the 1^st petitioner as Rs.45,000/-.

¶25

The Family Court recorded evidence and tried the matter. PW1 examined and Exts.A1 to A9 marked on the side of the petitioners. RW1 examined and Exts.B1 to B10 marked on the side of the respondent. Thereafter, the Family Court granted Rs.7,500/- per month as maintenance of the 2^nd petitioner.

¶26

Now, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the respondent is a person earning more than Rs.1,00,000/- at present. Therefore, the Family

¶27

¶28

RP(FC) NO. 245 OF 2021

¶29

Court is not justified in granting Rs.7,500/- as maintenance to the 2^nd petitioner and the same required to be enhanced so as to meet the expanses of the 2^nd petitioner, particularly in the circumstances that, now he has been studying for MBBS course and the entire expenditure for admission and other purposes being met by the 1^st petitioner out of her earnings.

¶30

Whereas, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the 1^st petitioner is employed, the contribution towards the maintenance of the 2^nd petitioner shall be adjusted in between the 1^st petitioner and the respondent. Therefore, Rs.7,500/- granted by the Family Court towards the maintenance of the 2^nd petitioner is just and reasonable.

¶31

In this matter, it is an admitted fact that the 1^st petitioner is employed as a teacher in an Aided School where salary being paid by the Government. Similarly, the respondent is a person admittedly working as an Agricultural Officer, Grade-I. As per Ext.A4, his gross salary is Rs.80,000/- per month, as rightly observed by the Family Court. Increase in the emoluments by way of

¶32

¶33

RP(FC) NO. 245 OF 2021

¶34

increment and DA could not be ignored. Now, admittedly the 2^nd petitioner has been studying for MBBS course as submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners.

¶35

Having considered all these aspects, I am of the view that the amount of maintenance granted by the Family Court at the rate of Rs.7,500/- is much less and the same must require increase considering the income of the respondent and the expenses to be incurred by the 2^nd petitioner in the facts and circumstances of this case.

¶36

Accordingly, the order impugned is modified as follows:

¶37

The respondent herein is directed to pay maintenance to the 2^nd revision petitioner at the rate of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) from 10.07.2019 till 10.07.2021 and at the rate of Rs.18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand Only) from 10.07.2021 till the date the 2^nd petitioner attains majority, holding that the same is reasonable maintenance in the case at hand.

¶38

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed.

¶39

RP(FC) NO. 245 OF 2021

¶40

¶41

The order impugned is modified as indicated above and there shall be a direction to the respondent herein to clear the entire arrears from the date of the MC till this date, within a period of three months from today. It is specifically made clear that, if the respondent fails to pay the arrears of maintenance, as directed, the revision petitioners herein/petitioners in the above M.C. can execute this modified order to realize the arrears, in accordance with law.

¶42

Sd/A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶43

Binitha v. Hareendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binitha v. Hareendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Premadasan Vs Pushparajan

Charulatha S Vs Juvan Augustine

Babu M.P., Vs Thankamma,(Died) Lrs Recorded

Ramachandran Vs Mathew v. Philip

Helindas Vs Biju

Padeeri Komalavalli Vs Sulochana Amma