Dismissed

R. Anil Kumar v. N.R Ramya

Kerala HC6 Nov 2023RPFC/311/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Court dismissed a revision petition challenging a Family Court order granting maintenance to a wife and child under Section 125 CrPC, finding no illegality in the impugned decision despite the petitioner's argument regarding the wife's employment and his lower stated income.

What did the court decide?

Reversed the dismissal of maintenance claims and permitted payment of arrears in two installments.

R. Anil Kumar Vs N.R Ramya — 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 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶5

RPFC NO. 311 OF 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 179/2015 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶8

R. ANIL KUMAR AGED 32 YEARS AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, ANIL BHAVAN, PALATTUKONAM, BHARATHANOOR, PANGODE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR SRI.S.JATHIN DAS

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 N.R RAMYA AGED 28 YEARS AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.RAMANI,RAMYA RAJ BHAVAN, KOLLAMKAVU,PAZHAKUTTY.P.O, NEDUMANGAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 ANU RAJ AGED 2 1/2 YEARS, S/O.R.ANIL KUMAR,..DO..DO.., REPRESENTED BY MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT,N.R.RAMYA.

¶12

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

RPFC NO. 311 OF 2016

¶14

¶15

(Dated this the 6^th day of November, 2023)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The revision petition is filed challenging the order in M.C.No.179/2015 of the Family Court, Nedumangad, directing the revision petitioner to pay the monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.6,000/- and Rs.1,000/- to the respondents – wife and son - from the date of petition (26.05.2015). The revision petitioner was the respondent and the respondents were the petitioners before the

¶18

Family Court.

¶19

Brief facts

¶20

The respondents had filed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short, “Code') inter-alia, asserting that the 1^st respondent was married to the revision petitioner on 08.07.2011 and the 2^nd respondent was born in their wedlock. The revision petitioner deserted the respondents since 22.09.2012. The respondents do not have any means to maintain themselves. The revision petitioner is working in the

¶21

RPFC NO. 311 OF 2016

¶22

¶23

Indian Air Force as a Civilian and is drawing a monthly salary of Rs.40,000/-. He is also getting a monthly income of Rs.30,000/- from other sources. The respondents are entitled to maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,000/-, respectively, from the revision petitioner. Hence, the application.

¶24

The revision petitioner filed a written objection refuting the allegations in the application. He contended that the 1^st respondent is employed and is living separately without sufficient cause. Moreover, the revision petitioner was only drawing a monthly salary of Rs.12,000/-. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

¶25

The 1^st respondent was examined as PW1 and the revision petitioner was examined as CPW1 and Exts.R1 to R4 were marked through them in evidence.

¶26

The Family Court, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, partly allowed the application by directing the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance to the respondents at Rs.6,000/-

¶27

RPFC NO. 311 OF 2016

¶28

¶29

and Rs.1,000/-, respectively.

¶30

It is assailing the said order; the present revision petition is filed.

¶31

Heard; Sri.Sreekanth S. Nair, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. Although notice has been served on the respondents, there is no appearance for them.

¶32

The revision petitioner admits his marriage with the 1^st respondent and the paternity of the 2^nd respondent.

¶33

The respondents case was that although the revision petitioner is employed in the Indian Air Force and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.40,000/- and getting a monthly income of Rs.30,000/- from other sources, he has willfully refused to maintain them. The respondents have no source of income. Hence, they are entitled to maintain @ Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively.

¶34

The revision petitioner's defence was that the 1^st respondent was living separately from him without any

¶35

RPFC NO. 311 OF 2016

¶36

¶37

sufficient cause, the 1^st respondent is well employed and he is drawing only Rs.12,000/- per month.

¶38

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (‘Code’ for short), was conceived to

¶39

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, so that suitable arrangements can be made by the Courts to sustain them in their life ahead.

¶40

It is trite law that an able bodied person is statutorily bound to maintain his wife and children. [Read Anju Garg & Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 805]].

¶41

Indisputably, the revision petitioner has not taken any steps to resume cohabitation with the 1^st respondent or has he filed a petition for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The revision petitioner has himself produced his pay slip (Ext.R1), which shows he is drawing a monthly income of Rs.18,988/-.

¶42

RPFC NO. 311 OF 2016

¶43

¶44

On an anxious consideration of the pleadings and materials on record, particularly Ext.R1 salary slip which shows that the revision petitioner is well employed in the Indian Air Force and drawing a salary nearly of Rs.19,000/- and that there is no evidence to the contrary to prove that the 1^st respondent is employed or living separately without sufficient reason, I am of the definite view that the respondents are entitled to maintenance to live in the same status and standard of living as that of the revision petitioner.

¶45

Furthermore, the impugned order was passed on 20.08.2015, i.e., more than eight years back. Therefore, at this point of time I do not find any reason to interfere with the same, especially since there is no error, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court by exercising its revisional power under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. The revision petition is meritless and without any substance.

¶46

Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶47

RPFC NO. 311 OF 2016

¶48

¶49

Nonetheless, as this Court had passed a conditional interim order on 20.07.2016 directing the revision petitioner to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as provisional monthly maintenance, till the disposal of the revision petition, I am of the view that the revision petitioner has to be given a breathing time to pay the arrears of maintenance due as per the impugned order. Hence, notwithstanding the dismissal of the revision petition, the revision petitioner is permitted to pay arrears of maintenance as per the impugned order in two equated monthly installments i.e., on or before 01.01.2024 and 01.02.2024. Needless to mention, if the revision petitioner fails to pay arrears of maintenance as ordered above, the respondents will be at liberty to execute the impugned order, in accordance with law.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS

JUDGE

rkc/06.11.23

R. Anil Kumar v. N.R Ramya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Anil Kumar v. N.R Ramya

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

Pilitha Vs Anish

N.Vasavan Vs State

N Chellappan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

A.Sivadasn @ Sivan Vs Sairabanu

Rafeek.E.K Vs Ahammed Raza.P.P

State of Kerala Vs N.R,Shaji