Dismissed

Unnikrishnan.K v. Shini.N.P

Kerala HC9 Aug 2023RPFC/75/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a revision petition challenging a Family Court order granting maintenance. The Court held the endorsement did not waive maintenance from the original petition date but affirmed the order and directed adjustment of interim payments towards arrears.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed. Revision petitioner directed to clear arrears of maintenance after adjusting interim deposits.

Unnikrishnan.K Vs Shini.N.P — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1945

¶5

RPFC NO. 75 OF 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2014 IN M.C.NO.259/2012 PASSED BY

¶7

THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶9

UNNIKRISHNAN.K

¶10

AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.LATE UNNI, OVERSEAR, KSEB, QUARTERS NO.F10,220 KV SUB STATION, P.O.NALLALAM, AREEKKAD, KOZHIKODE-27.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P

¶12

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶13

1 SHINI.N.P AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.N.P.VASUDEVAN, NALUPURAKKAL HOUSE, POLOOR, KURUVATTOOR, P.O.KONOTT, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673571.

¶14

2 AKSHAYA K. AGED 15 YEARS, D/O.SHINI N.P., NALUPURAKKAL HOUSE, POLOOR, KURUVATTOOR, P.O.KONOTT, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673571.

¶15

3 ANAGHA K. AGED 13 YEARS D/O.SHINI N.P., NALUPURAKKAL HOUSE, POLOOR, KURUVATTOOR, P.O.KONOTT, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673571. (MINOR RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN, 1ST RESPONDENT) BY ADVS.

¶16

SRI.P.K.JAYAKRISHNAN – R2 & R3 ALEX K.JOHN - R1 SRAYAS JOSEPH(K/00000059/2023) NINAN THOMAS(K/1994/2021) SYED MUHAMMED SALIH A.N.(K/528/2013) RADHIKA K.(K/70/2021)

¶17

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶18

ON 09.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

RP(FC) NO. 75 OF 2016

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Dated this the 9^th day of August, 2023

¶23

This revision petition has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984, challenging the order in M.C. No.259/2012 dated 20.01.2014 whereby the Family Court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- to the 1 st respondent and Rs.1,500/- each to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from the date of the petition i.e. on 18.08.2012.

¶24

2 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶25

3 . The one and only point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that during the pendency of the maintenance case, as on 20.01.2014, the 1 st respondent endorsed in the petition that she is agreeable for the condition offered by the revision petitioner to give Rs.3,000/- as maintenance to her and Rs.1,500/- each to respondents 2 and 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that while making the endorsement the intention was to give maintenance from the date of the endorsement with effect from 20.01.2014. It is also submitted that as per the impugned order, in paragraph No.7,

¶26

¶27

RP(FC) NO. 75 OF 2016

¶28

maintenance was ordered with effect from 18.08.2012 (the date of maintenance petition). Therefore, the impugned order requires interference by granting maintenance from 20.01.2014.

¶29

4 . Whereas it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that there is huge amount in arrears towards maintenance and the 1 st respondent never intended to give up her claim for maintenance before 20.01.2014 and therefore the order of the Family Court granting maintenance with effect from 18.08.2012 is not liable to be interfered.

¶30

5 . In view of the rival contentions, I have perused the endorsement on the back of the MC No.259/2012, at the instance of the 1 st respondent on 20.01.2014. The endorsement is to the effect that the 1 st respondent is agreeable for the condition offered by the revision petitioner to give Rs.3,000/- as maintenance to her and Rs.1,500/- each to respondents 2 and 3.

¶31

6 . The endorsement does not suggest that the 1 st respondent agreed for maintenance from 20.01.2014 by giving up maintenance allowance with effect from 18.08.2012. Hence, it has to be inferred that the said amount was granted as agreed by the 1 st respondent from the date of the petition. Therefore, the order impugned granting maintenance with effect from 18.08.2012 requires no interference and accordingly this revision

¶32

¶33

RP(FC) NO. 75 OF 2016

¶34

petition fails. In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed.

¶35

7 . The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the pendency of M.C. No.259/2012, the revision petitioner paid a substantial amount as interim maintenance. Therefore, the same may be adjusted appropriately to the amount due covered by the order impugned.

¶36

Therefore, it is ordered the revision petitioner shall clear the arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.1,500/- each to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from the date of the petition i.e. on 18.08.2012. It is made clear that Rs.1,14,000/- and Rs.50,000/- deposited during the pendency of this revision petition and the amount, if any, paid during the pendency of the MC shall be adjusted appropriately towards the amount covered by the impugned order and the balance amount alone needs to be paid by the revision petitioner.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN

JUDGE

RP(FC) NO. 75 OF 2016

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF RP(FC) NO.75 OF 2016

¶44

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶45

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN M.C.NO.259/2012 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE, DATED 12.08.2012 ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 27.08.2013 ANNEXURE III TRUE COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS EVIDENCING PAYMENTS MADE BY THE PETITIONER

¶46

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

Unnikrishnan.K v. Shini.N.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unnikrishnan.K v. Shini.N.P

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

Jose v.J., Vs Sree Gokulam Chits and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd.

Joy Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Noushad Flourish Vs Akhila

Unnimon a. Vs Sukanyadevi

Saneer Vs State of Kerala

P.N.M Hospital Vs State of Kerala