Dismissed

A.Sivadasn @ Sivan v. Sairabanu

Kerala HC6 Nov 2023RPFC/445/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an order directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance to his wife. The High Court upheld the Family Court's order, finding no illegality, impropriety, or irregularity.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed. Petitioner granted breathing time to pay arrears in two equated monthly installments on or before 01.01.2024 and 01.02.2024. Parties may invoke Section 127 CrPC for change

A.Sivadasn @ Sivan Vs Sairabanu — 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. 445 OF 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 274/2010 OF FAMILY

¶7

COURT,KOZHIKODE

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶9

A.SIVADASN @ SIVAN AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. LATE KANDAPPU, PATTITHARA P.O., THRITHALA VIA, THALAKKASSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV SRI.S.MANU

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

SAIRABANU AGED 47 YEARS AGED 47 YEARS, D/O. V.SREENIVASAN, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, THIRUVANNUR P.O., WEST MANKAVU, KOZHIKODE-673 029.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SRI.S.KANNAN SMT.M.SHAJNA

¶14

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

¶15

RPFC NO. 445 OF 2016

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The revision petition is directed against the order in M.C.No.274/2010 of the Family Court, Kozhikode, ordering the revision petitioner to pay the respondent monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.5,000/- from the date of petition. The revision petitioner was the respondent and the respondent was the petitioner before the Family Court.

¶20

Brief facts

¶21

The respondent had filed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short, 'Code') against the revision petitioner claiming monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.15,000/-. It was her case that she is the wife of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner is employed in the Gulf and is earning Rs.1,00,0000/- per month. He has four acres of landed property and a building which has been given on lease. The revision petitioner has treated the respondent with severe cruelty. The respondent was working in a private firm but

¶22

¶23

RPFC NO. 445 OF 2016

¶24

the revision petitioner imputed that she was leading an unchaste life which compelled her to resign the job. Since then, the respondent is jobless and has no means for sustenance. The respondent has learnt that the revision petitioner has re-married and has a child in the relationship. Hence, the application.

¶25

The revision petitioner filed a written objection, inter-alia, refuting the allegations in the application. He admitted the marriage, but denied that he treated the respondent with cruelty. However, he alleged that the respondent is living in adultery and was living separately without any sufficient cause. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled to maintenance and the application may be dismissed.

¶26

The respondent was examined as PW1 and the revision petitioner was examined as RW1.

¶27

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

¶28

RPFC NO. 445 OF 2016

¶29

¶30

monthly maintenance allowance to the respondent at Rs.5,000/-.

¶31

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

¶32

Heard; Sri.S. Manu, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri.K.Firoz, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶33

The learned Counsel appearing of for the revision petitioner argued that as the revision petitioner is now aged 63 years, he does not have any job or income. Therefore, he is not in a position to continue to maintain the respondent. Hence, the revision petition may be allowed.

¶34

Is there any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order ?

¶35

The revision petitioner admits his marriage with the respondent.

¶36

¶37

RPFC NO. 445 OF 2016

¶38

The respondent's case is that the revision petitioner treated her with cruelty and has refused to maintain her despite being employed in the Gulf and earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month.

¶39

The revision petitioner's defence is that the respondent is living separately from him without any sufficient cause and the amount of maintenance claimed by the respondent is excessive.

¶40

On an analysis of the materials placed on record, it is seen that the revision petitioner has admitted in his oral testimony that he was employed in the Gulf and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. It is based on the said admission that the Family Court ordered the revision petitioner to pay the respondent monthly maintenance @ Rs.5,000/-.

¶41

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (‘Code’ for short), was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial sufferings of

¶42

RPFC NO. 445 OF 2016

¶43

¶44

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.

¶45

It is also trite law that the wife is entitled to lead her life in the same status and position as that of her husband who has a sacrosanct duty to maintain his wife.

¶46

The defence of the revision petitioner is that the respondent is living separately without any sufficient cause. Indisputably, the revision petitioner has not taken any steps to resume cohabitation with the respondent or has not filed a petition for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. A mere bald assertion that the respondent is living separately without a valid reason is insufficient to disentitle to maintenance, that too after questioning her chastity without any foundation or proof.

¶47

After bestowing my anxious consideration of the pleadings and materials on record, I do not find any

¶48

RPFC NO. 445 OF 2016

¶49

¶50

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, 1984. The revision petition is meritless and is only liable to be dismissed.

¶51

Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶52

Nonetheless, as this Court had passed a conditional interim order, I am of the view that the revision petitioner be granted a breathing time to pay the arrears of maintenance due as per the impugned order in two equated monthly installments. Hence, notwithstanding the dismissal of the revision petition, the revision petitioner is permitted to pay the arrears of maintenance as per the impugned order on or before 01.01.2024 and 01.02.2024. It is also clarified that, if there is any change of circumstances, the parties would be at liberty to invoke Section 127 of the Code.

¶53

Sd/C.S.DIAS JUDGE

¶54

rkc/06.11.23

A.Sivadasn @ Sivan v. Sairabanu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Sivadasn @ Sivan v. Sairabanu

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

R. Anil Kumar Vs N.R Ramya

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

State of Kerala Vs N.R,Shaji