Dismissed

Sukumaran Nair L v. Archana C.S

Kerala HC8 Nov 2023RPFC/301/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged a Family Court order awarding maintenance to a wife and daughter. The High Court rejected the petitioner's arguments regarding the wife's rental income and his non-employment, affirming the lower court's finding that the petitioner must pay maintenance as the amount was reasonable.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed on the ground that there was no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order warranting revisional interference.

Sukumaran Nair L Vs Archana C.S — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶5

RPFC NO. 301 OF 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 534/2012 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶7

SUKUMARAN NAIR L
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. LATE LAMBODHARAN PILLAI, TV 2/3160, KULANGARA
LANE, PATTOM PALACE P.O.

¶8

BY ADVS.
SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE
SRI.JAI GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶10

1ARCHANA C.S
AGED 37 YEARS
D/O. SYAMALAKUMARI, AKARATHUVILAKAM, MULLASSERI,
KARAKULAM P.O., KARAKULAM VILLAGE - 695 564.

¶11

2ATHIRA A.S
AGED 12 YEARS
D/O. ARCHANA C.S, MINOR, REP. BY ITS MOTHER,
AKARATHUVILAKAM, MULLASSERI, KARAKULAM P.O.,
KARAKULAM VILLAGE - 695 564.

¶12

BY ADV SRI.M.ABDUL RASHEED

¶13

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

R.P(F.C.) NO. 301 OF 2016 2

¶15

Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2023

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The revision petition is filed questioning the legality and correction of the order in M.C. No.534/2012 passed by the Family Court, Nedumangad, directing the revision petitioner to pay the respondents – his wife and daughter - monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.4000/- and Rs.2000/respectively, from the date of petition (15.10.2012). The revision petitioner was the respondent and the respondents were the petitioners before the Family Court.

¶18

Brief facts:

¶19

The respondents had filed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Code’ for short) against the revision petitioner, seeking

¶20

R.P(F.C.) NO. 301 OF 2016 3

¶21

monthly maintenance allowance. It was their case that, the first respondent was married to the revision petitioner on 10.02.2000. The second respondent was born in their wedlock. The revision petitioner has willfully refused to maintain them since 23.9.2011. The respondents do not have any source of income for their sustenance. The revision petitioner is an Exserviceman and is presently working as a Security Officer and is earning a monthly income of Rs.25,000/The respondents require an amount of Rs.5000/- and Rs.4000/-, respectively, for their monthly maintenance. Hence, the application.

¶22

The revision petitioner had filed a written objection, inter alia, refuting the allegations in the application. It was his defence that, the first respondent is living separately from him without any sufficient cause. He has no employment or income. The first respondent has sufficient rental income.

¶23

R.P(F.C.) NO. 301 OF 2016 4

¶24

Hence, the application may be dismissed.

¶25

The first respondent was examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P5 were marked through her in evidence. The revision petitioner was examined as CPW1 and Exts.R1 to R6 were marked on his side.

¶26

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 the respondents monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.4000/- and Rs.2000/-, respectively.

¶27

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

¶28

Heard; Smt.Daisy A.Philipose, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri. Abdul Rasheed, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶29

or Is there any illegality, impropriety

¶30

irregularity in the impugned order?

¶31

R.P(F.C.) NO. 301 OF 2016 5

¶32

The revision petitioner admits his marriage with the first respondent and does not dispute the paternity of the second respondent.

¶33

The respondents had filed the application alleging that though the revision petitioner was getting pension and working as a security officer, he has refused to maintain the respondents since 23.9.2011. The respondents have no income and are unable to maintain themselves.

¶34

The revision petitioner’s defence was that, the first respondent was living separately from him without any justifiable reason or cause and she has rental income, and the second respondent was studying in Kendriya Vidyalaya, therefore, she does not have any educational expenses.

¶35

In the celebrated judgment in Rajnesh v.

¶36

Neha and Another [2020 (6) KHC 1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that maintenance laws have

¶37

R.P(F.C.) NO. 301 OF 2016 6

¶38

been enacted as a measure of social justice to provide recourse to dependent wives and children for their financial support, so as to prevent them from falling into destitution and vagrancy.

¶39

In Captian Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal and Another [(1978) 4 SCC 70], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has declared that the provision for maintenance is a measure of social justice and Section 125 and Chapter IX of the Code has been specially enacted to protect the women and children, who fall within the constitutional sweep of Article 15 (3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.

¶40

In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Others [(2015) 6 SCC 353], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that Section 125 of the Code was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who left her

¶41

R.P(F.C.) NO. 301 OF 2016 7

¶42

matrimonial home, so that suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and her children. It is the sacrosanct duty of the husband – father - to provide financial support to the wife and minor children and the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able bodied person, and that he could not avoid his obligation, except on any legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute.

¶43

In the case on hand, even though the revision petitioner had alleged that the first respondent was earning rental income, there is absolutely no material to fortify his contention. He attempted to press Ext.R3 document, which is alleged to be executed by the tenant of the first respondent. The same has no validity because the first respondent has not signed the said document. The document was not confronted and proved through PW1 as contemplated

¶44

R.P(F.C.) NO. 301 OF 2016 8

¶45

under law. Furthermore, the first respondent has emphatically denied in her cross examination that she has rental income. Without any substantive material the revision petitioner cannot deny maintenance to his wife.

¶46

On the contrary, the revision petitioner

¶47

himself has produced Ext.R4 pension payment details, which shows that he is earning a monthly pension of Rs.10,000/- . At the time of filing the application, the respondent was aged 42 years. He has produced Ext.R6 discharge slip to establish that he is not in a position to pursue any employment. Ext.R6 shows that the revision petitioner had a tear on his left knee, while playing football. The said ailment is not of permanent nature. As the revision petitioner is aged 42 years, necessarily, he is an able bodied person.

¶48

Going by the law laid down in Bhuwan Mohan Singh (Supra), the revision petitioner is

¶49

R.P(F.C.) NO. 301 OF 2016 9

¶50

bound to maintain the respondents even by doing physical labour. The respondents also have a case that the revision petitioner is working as a security officer and he has a total monthly income of Rs.25,000/-.

¶51

An upshot of the above discussion leads me to inevitable conclusion that there is no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court by exercising its revisional powers under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. The amount of maintenance awarded by the Family Court is only reasonable and justifiable.

¶52

The revision petition is devoid of any merits and is resultantly dismissed. Needless to mention that, if the revision petitioner has deposited any amount, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, he would be entitled for adjustment of the said amount while calculating the arrears of maintenance payable

¶53

R.P(F.C.) NO. 301 OF 2016 10

¶54

as per the impugned order. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of the order to the Family Court for further proceedings.

¶55

SD/-

¶56

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

¶57

rmm8/11/2023

Sukumaran Nair L v. Archana C.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukumaran Nair L v. Archana C.S

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

State of Kerala Vs N.R,Shaji

P.M.Shameer Vs Food Inspector and Another

Abdul Sathar Vs Jasmine

Babu, S/O. Kutty, Vs State of Kerala

Umesh and Others Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Nizar Vs Sajeena