IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1944
RPFC NO. 222 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.07.2021 IN M.C.NO.118/2018 OF FAMILY
COURT, THIRUVALLA
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
MANOJ KUMAR.T.,
AGED 48, S/O.VISWANATHA KURUP, LEKHA SADANAM HOUSE,
THADIYOOR P.O., THELLIYOOR VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK,
PIN-689 545.
BY ADV. SRI.DINESH.P.T.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SULEKHA K.S.,
AGED 35, D/O.LALITHA BHAI @ LATHA S.NAIR,
RESIDING AT SURESH BHAVAN, THURUTHIKADU P.O.,
KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE, MALLAPPALY TALUK, PIN-689 587.
2 DEVIKA MANOJ,
AGED 15 (MINOR)
D/O/.MANOJ KUMAR.T., RESIDING AT SURESH BHAVAN,
THURUTHIKADU P.O., KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE, MALLAPPALY
TALUK, PIN-689 587.
REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SULEKHA K.S, 1ST RESPONDENT.
3 DHANESH KUMAR ,
AGED 11 (MINOR), S/O.MANOJ KUMAR.T., RESIDING AT SURESH
BHAVAN, THURUTHIKADU P.O., KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE,
MALLAPPALY TALUK, PIN-689 587.
REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER SULEKHA K.S, 1ST RESPONDENT.
BY ADV. SRI. K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA)
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.(F.C) NO.222 OF 2021
2
ORDER
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2022 This revision is filed challenging an order passed by Family Court, Thiruvalla (for short 'the court below') in M.C.No.118/2018 which is part of a common judgment passed on 07.07.2021.
2. Vide the order in the M.C, the court below has declined the claim of the wife for monthly maintenance allowance but ordered monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each to two minor children. The revision petitioner has approached this Court stating that he is incapable to pay monthly maintenance allowance at the rates stand ordered by the court below in favour of the children. He canvassed for a modification of the sums stand ordered.
3. The learned counsel representing the revision petitioner and the respondents were heard. The impugned order is also perused.
4. Admittedly revision petitioner was employed at Gulf at the time of marriage and was earning sufficient income. But, R.P.(F.C) NO.222 OF 2021 3 later he abandoned the job and landed at the hometown. At the relevant time of consideration of the M.C, he was an Auto driver. Evidence was not adduced by the respondent as well as the revision petitioner to establish the actual monthly income earned by the latter.
5. The revision petitioner has produced medical documents before the court below to establish that he is suffering from Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease. That was during the period when the M.C was under consideration of the court below. The marking of medical documents was not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Even in the absence of any proof regarding the monthly income earned by the revision petitioner at the relevant time, the court below had taken a view that the revision petitioner being at Gulf at the time of marriage, must have sufficient income with him and accordingly, directed him to pay monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each to the children who are respondents 2 and 3.
6. The appreciation of evidence by the court below was not in the proper perspective. In the above circumstances, this R.P.(F.C) NO.222 OF 2021 4 Court finds that reduction in the monthly maintenance allowance stands ordered is just and reasonable.
7. In the result, R.P.(F.C) stands allowed. The order passed in the M.C is modified by reducing the monthly maintenance allowance stands ordered in favour of respondents 2 and 3 from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.4,000/- each.
8. This court has noticed that after passing of the order in the M.C, no amount was paid by the revision petitioner in favour of the respondents. For the first time, when a direction has been issued by this Court by an interim order passed in the revision that the revision petitioner paid Rs.50,000/- in lumpsum towards arrears of monthly maintenance allowance. As per the order in the M.C revision petitioner was directed to pay monthly maintenance allowance from the date of the petition i.e from 2018.
9. In the above circumstances, this Court directs the revision petitioner to pay half of the arrears of monthly maintenance allowance at the rate modified by this Court in the order within a period of one month from this day, before the court below. The balance amount due as arrears shall be paid in R.P.(F.C) NO.222 OF 2021 5 four equal monthly installments commencing from the months succeeding the month on which the first payment is made. The revision petitioner shall also continue to pay monthly maintenance allowance at the modified rates to respondents 2 and 3. In case of default of the revision petitioner to pay the first part as directed by this Court, the respondents shall initiate necessary steps to execute the order and the court below shall pass appropriate orders.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH JUDGE NAB