Dismissed¶46

John Johnson v. Ugenett Mary

Kerala HC26 Mar 2025RPFC/57/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance revision dismissed — Kerala HC RPFC 57/2021 (2025:KER:26231, 26.03.2025, Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath) upholding Family Court Ernakulam judgment 06.04.2019 in M.C.No.203/2013 granting monthly maintenance to wife Ugenett Mary and minor son Joseph Johnson against husband John Johnson; paternity dispute resolved by DNA test Ext.X1 in O.P.574/2007 outweighing husband's Ext.A1 medical certificate (Erectile Dysfunction/Epidermal Cyst, PW2 doctor); husband's monthly earnings assessed Rs.30,000/- (guesswork); 1st respondent died during pendency (memo filed) so her maintenance challenge not considered; quantum for child not interfered with; revision petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the revision petitioner; the Family Court judgment granting monthly maintenance to the respondents stands undisturbed. ¶46

John Johnson Vs Ugenett Mary — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the revision petitioner; the Family Court judgment granting monthly maintenance to the respondents stands undisturbed.

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the 2nd respondent (Joseph Johnson) is the biological son of the petitioner, the petitioner having disputed paternity relying on Ext.A1 medical evidence against the Ext.X1 DNA report +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

The petitioner's paternity dispute was not entertained: the Family Court's finding, resting on the Ext.X1 DNA report, that the 2nd respondent is the petitioner's child stood undisturbed, and the maintenance granted to the minor was upheld.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Since the 1st respondent is no more (memo filed to that effect), the challenge against the grant of maintenance to her need not be considered.

¶42

Key takeaways

Considering the requirement of the 2nd respondent and the ability and means of the petitioner, the quantum of maintenance granted to the 2nd respondent does not warrant any interference.ratio¶45
The revision petition is dismissed.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Kerala High Court (Ernakulam), Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath (sole judge), 26.03.2025: RPFC No. 57 of 2021 (2025:KER:26231) — a revision petition by the husband, John Johnson, against the judgment dated 06.04.2019 of the Family Court, Ernakulam in M.C.No.203/2013 granting monthly maintenance to the wife, Ugenett Mary, and the minor son, Joseph Johnson (tried alongside O.P.No.1238 of 2013 for past maintenance and gold ornaments and O.P.No.1061 of 2008 for divorce). The husband had disputed the child's paternity, producing Ext.A1 medical certificate and the issuing doctor (PW2) evidencing treatment for Erectile Dysfunction (13.05.2005 to 30.09.2005) and Epidermal Cyst; the genuineness of Ext.A1 was disputed and the Family Court found it could not be accepted. However, a DNA test (Ext.X1) undergone by the parties in the husband's O.P.574 of 2007 (restitution of conjugal rights) showed the 2nd respondent to be the child of both, and the paternity contention was repelled. The Family Court had fixed the husband's monthly earnings at Rs.30,000/- (acknowledged by this Court as guesswork). At the final hearing both sides reported the wife's demise (memo filed), so the challenge to her maintenance was not considered; the quantum for the minor, weighed against his requirements and the father's ability and means, was held not to warrant any interference. Revision petition dismissed.

¶1

RPFC NO. 57 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

2025:KER:26231

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶7

WEDNESDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶8

RPFC NO. 57 OF 2021

¶9

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.04.2019 IN MC NO.203 OF

¶10

2013 OF FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶11

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶12

JOHN JOHNSON AGED 51 YEARS

¶13

S/O.K.C. JOHN, PONMADIRAM, NELLIKKALA P.O., ELANTHOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PIN-689 643

¶14

BY ADVS. A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA

¶15

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶16

1 UGENETT MARY AGED 49 YEARS

¶17

D/O. GEORGE, KUDAKUTHUMPARAMPIL, THOPPUMPADY P.O., KOCHI,PIN-682 005

¶18

2 JOSEPH JOHNSON, AGED 12 YEARS S/O. JOHN JOHNSON, KUDAKUTHUMPARAMPIL,

¶19

RPFC NO. 57 OF 2021

¶20

¶21

2025:KER:26231

¶22

THOPPUMPADY P.O., OCHI, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND HIS NEXT FRIEND URGENT MARY, AGED 49 YEARS, D/O. GEORGE KUDAKUTHUMPARAMPIL, THOPPUMPADY P.O., KOCHI,PIN-682 005

¶23

BY ADVS. PHILIP T.VARGHESE THOMAS T.VARGHESE(K/000516/1995) ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM(K/001758/1999) V.T.LITHA(K/278/2006) K.R.MONISHA(K/915/2013) JIJO PAUL(K/1009/2023) ANJALI SUNIL(K/532/2024) ANJALI G.KRISHNAN(K/439/2008)

¶24

THIS REV. PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

RPFC NO. 57 OF 2021

2025:KER:26231

O R D E R

The petitioner is the husband of the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent claims that the 2^nd respondent is the son born out of the wedlock between her and the petitioner. The paternity of the 2^nd respondent is disputed by the petitioner.

¶30

The respondents filed a maintenance case against the petitioner as M.C.No.203/2013 claiming monthly maintenance. M.C.No.203/2013 was tried along with O.P.No.1238 of 2013 which was filed for past maintenance and recovery of gold ornaments and O.P.No.1061 of 2008, which was filed for divorce. The Family Court have rightly allowed the petition granting maintenance to the respondents. The said judgment is under challenge in this revision petition.

¶31

I have heard Sri.A.T.Anilkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Philip T.Varghese, the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶32

RPFC NO. 57 OF 2021

¶33

¶34

2025:KER:26231

¶35

The marriage is not in dispute. As stated already, the petitioner has disputed the paternity of the 2^nd respondent. To substantiate his contention that the 2^nd respondent is not his son, he produced Ext.A1 medical certificate and examined the doctor who issued Ext.A1, as PW2. As per Ext.A1 and the evidence of PW2, it is seen that the petitioner was under treatment from 13.05.2005 to 30.09.2005 for Erectile Dysfunction. The certificate would show that the petitioner was having Epidermal Cyst. PW2 deposed that due to this, there was no hope for his organ of generation. However, the genuineness of Ext.A1 was disputed by the 1^st respondent. The Family Court, on appreciation of evidence found that Ext.A1 cannot be accepted as such.

¶36

In O.P.574 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, the parties underwent a DNA test and obtained Ext.X1 report. It would show that the 2^nd respondent is the child of the 1^st respondent and the

¶37

RPFC NO. 57 OF 2021

¶38

¶39

2025:KER:26231

¶40

petitioner. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the 2^nd respondent is not his son was repelled by the Family Court.

¶41

The 1^st respondent contended that she does not have any independent source of income. Though it has come out in evidence that she is working and gets some income from a catering business conducted by her brother, there is nothing on record to show that she has any permanent source of income. It has come out in evidence that the petitioner's parents have a multi storied auditorium and a hardware shop. The petitioner contended that the hardware shop is conducted by his mother and he has no involvement in the said business. However, the Family Court fixed the monthly earning of the petitioner as Rs.30,000/-. It is true that it was based on a guesswork.

¶42

Both counsel submitted that the 1^st respondent is no more. A memo has also been filed to that effect. Therefore, the challenge against the grant of maintenance to the 1^st respondent need not be considered. Considering the requirement of the 2^nd

¶43

RPFC NO. 57 OF 2021

¶44

6 2025:KER:26231

¶45

respondent and the ability and means of the petitioner the quantum of maintenance granted to the 2^nd respondent does not warrant any interference.

¶46

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH , JUDGE