Dismissed¶¶41

Sreejith v. Sajini

Kerala HC2 Apr 2025RPFC/536/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance revision dismissed by Kerala High Court (RPFC 536/2018 vs Family Court Palakkad M.C.176/2016, order dt. 28.09.2018; wife Rs.4,500/- p.m., minor child Rs.3,000/- p.m.). Key points: wife living separately held to have justifiable reason, preserving her maintenance entitlement; unproven allegations of wife's employment; husband's claimed income of Rs.5,000/- p.m. unsupported (salary certificate/employer examination suggested); quantum found reasonable on requirement-vs-means test. Relevant to arguments on separation without cause and evidentiary burden in proving income in maintenance matters.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the impugned Family Court maintenance order dated 28.09.2018 stands unaltered. ¶¶41

Sreejith Vs Sajini — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; the impugned Family Court maintenance order dated 28.09.2018 stands unaltered.

¶¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether there was a justifiable reason for the 1st respondent (wife) to live separately from the petitioner, so as to remain entitled to maintenance despite the separation. +2 more

¶¶35

Court's answer

There was a justifiable reason for the 1st respondent to live separately; the Family Court's factual finding on this point is affirmed and requires no interference in revision.

¶¶35

Ratio / Principle

Neither side proved income claims: the petitioner adduced no evidence that the 1st respondent is employed or has income, and although he contended he earns only Rs.5,000/- per month as an employee at a fancy shop run by Mr.Mustafa, he did not prove his own income, though he could have produced a salary certificate or examined his employer.

¶¶36

Key takeaways

Considering the requirement of the respondents and the means of the petitioner, the monthly maintenance granted by the Family Court appears reasonable; there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order.ratio¶¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Kerala (Ernakulam), single judge Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, order dated 02.04.2025: dismissed RPFC No. 536 of 2018, a revision against the Family Court, Palakkad's maintenance order dated 28.09.2018 in M.C.No.176 of 2016, which granted the wife (Sajini) Rs.4,500/- and the minor son (Sreehari) Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of the petition. With marriage and paternity undisputed, the Court upheld the trial court's evidence-based finding that the wife had a justifiable reason to live separately. On means, it noted the husband adduced no evidence that the wife is employed or has income, and that he himself, despite contending he earns only Rs.5,000/- per month as an employee at a fancy shop run by Mr.Mustafa, proved no income though he could have produced a salary certificate or examined his employer. Finding the quantum reasonable considering the respondents' requirement and the petitioner's means, the Court saw no reason to interfere and dismissed the revision petition.

¶1

RPFC NO. 536 OF 2018

¶2

¶3

2025:KER:28094

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶7

WEDNESDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶8

RPFC NO. 536 OF 2018

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.09.2018 IN MC NO.176 OF

¶10

2016 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD

¶11

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶12

SREEJITH AGED 37 YEARS S/O GOPALAN, PALARI HOUSE, KANJIRAPUZHA, PALAKKAD PIN 678591

¶13

BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW

¶14

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶15

1 SAJINI AGED 26 YEARS D/O CHANDRAN, PADINJAREMURI VEEDU, THARUVAKURISSI, PALAKKAD PIN 68701

¶16

2 SREEHARI, AGED 4 YEARS (MINOR), S/O SREEJITH, PADINJAREMURI VEEDU, THARUVAKURISSI, PALAKKAD, PIN 68701, (MINOR 2ND RESPONDENT,

¶17

RPFC NO. 536 OF 2018

¶18

¶19

2025:KER:28094

¶20

REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER, 1ST RESPONDENT, SAJINI).

¶21

BY ADV SRI.P.K.MOHANAN (PALAKKAD)

¶22

THIS REV. PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

RPFC NO. 536 OF 2018

2025:KER:28094

O R D E R

This revision petition has been filed challenging the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.No.176 of 2016 dated 28.09.2018.

¶28

The petitioner is the husband of the 1^st respondent and the father of the 2^nd respondent. The respondents filed a maintenance case against the petitioner claiming maintenance. The Family Court, after trial, granted a monthly maintenance of Rs.4,500/- to the 1^st respondent and Rs.3,000/- to the 2^nd respondent from the date of the petition as per the impugned order.

¶29

I have heard Sri.Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel

¶30

for the petitioner and Sri.P.K.Mohanan (Palakkad), the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶31

The marriage and the paternity are not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner and the 1^st respondent were living

¶32

RPFC NO. 536 OF 2018

¶33

¶34

2025:KER:28094

¶35

separately. The petitioner had taken up a contention that since the 1^st respondent was living separately without any reason, she was not entitled to maintenance. However, the Family Court, after evaluation of evidence, found that there was a justifiable reason for the 1^st respondent to live separately. I see no reason to interfere with the said factual finding in this revision petition.

¶36

The petitioner has contended that the 1^st respondent is employed and has income. The 1^st respondent has denied the same. No evidence has been adduced by the petitioner to substantiate the said plea. According to the 1^st respondent, the petitioner is running a fancy shop and is also engaged in survey work, and earns a substantial income to support the respondents. On the other hand, the contention of the petitioner is that he is an employee at a fancy shop run by one Mr.Mustafa and earns only Rs.5,000/- per month. However, he did not adduce any evidence to prove his income. The petitioner could have either produced the salary certificate or examined his employer.

¶37

RPFC NO. 536 OF 2018

¶38

¶39

2025:KER:28094

¶40

Considering the requirement of the respondents and the means of the petitioner, the amount of monthly maintenance granted by the Family Court appears to be reasonable. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶41

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH , JUDGE

¶44

Sreejith v. Sajini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreejith v. Sajini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suhas R Vs Nivas P.M

Biji P Anand Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.A Abdulla Vs Union of India

Manoj Kumar Vs Vinithamol

Abdul Rahim Vs Arifa Beevi

Thanseer Muhammed Vs Noufiya