IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 23RD VAISAKHA, 1944
RPFC NO. 317 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MP No. 148/2020 IN MC 276/2009
OF FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 19.11.2020
REVISION PETITIONER/ORIGINAL RESPONDENT:
N.DILEEP KUMAR
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O NARAYANAN, PRESENTLY WORKING AS CHAWKIDAR IN
CENSUS DIRECTORATE, MINISTRY HOME AFFAIRS,
CGO COMPLEX,RESIDING AT QUARTERS NO 1, TYPE-1,
VELLAYANI P.O.POONKULAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 522.
BY ADV SHERLY THOMAS
RESPONDENTS/ORIGINAL PETITIONERS:
1 AMMINI VARGHESE
AGED 50 YEARS
D/O VARGHESE, EDAPPURATH HOUSE, URULANTHANNI
KARA, KUTTAMPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 681.
2 ADAM SMITH,
AGED 18 YEARS
S/O DILEEP, EDAPPURATH HOUSE, URULANTHANNI KARA,
KUTTAMPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 681.
3 FREDIMON,
AGED 13 YEARS
S/O DILEEP, EDAPPURATH HOUSE, URULANTHANNI KARA,
KUTTAMPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 681.
BY ADV SMT.ATHIRA A.MENON
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 13.12.2021, THE COURT ON 13.05.2022
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.(FC) No. 317 of 2020
-:2:-
MARY JOSEPH, J.
-----------------------
R.P.(FC) No. 317 of 2020
-----------------------
Dated this the 13th day of May, 2022
ORDER
The order passed by Family Court, Muvattupuzha in M.P. No.148/2020 in M.C. No.276/09 is under challenge in the revision on hand. The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.P. No.148/2020 and also in M.C. No.276/09. The respondents herein are the petitioners in M.P. No.148/202 as well as in M.C. No.276/09. The parties to this revision will hereinafter be referred to as petitioners and respondent in accordance with their status in the original M.C.
2. In M.P. No.148/202 a direction is sought to the respondent to pay a total sum of Rs.1,03,300/- to petitioners 2 and 3 and also for a direction to Deputy Director, Directorate of Census Operations, Kerala to deposit the educational allowances granted to the children of the respondent in the joint account of petitioners 2 and 3.
R.P.(FC) No. 317 of 2020 -:3:-
3. Originally, MC No.276/09 was filed by the petitioners before Family Court, Muvattupuzha seeking for monthly maintenance allowance. A compromise was entered and based on that an order as passed on 08.02.2012 and the respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- to the 1 st petitioner as monthly maintenance allowance in favour of petitioners 2 and 3. As per the terms of the compromise, the respondent has also agreed to pay the entire educational expenses of petitioners 2 and 3 on production of receipts of fee. Thereafter, MC No.65/16 was filed and vide order passed on 07.02.2019, the original order granting monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- was modified and enhanced to Rs.2,500/- each to petitiioners 2 and 3. Educational allowances were paid by the respondent to petitioners 2 and 3 till 2017 and thereafter the payment was defaulted. The respondent had accepted a total sum of Rs.1,03,300/- as educational allowance from his office for the period 2018-19, but failed to pay the same to petitioners 2 and 3. Aggrieved thereby, M.P. No.148/2020 was filed.
4. The respondent has stated in the objection filed that petitioners 2 and 3 are not entitled to seek for a direction to pay R.P.(FC) No. 317 of 2020 -:4:- educational allowance. The maintenance allowance payable to petitioners 2 and 3 as per order passed in M.C. No.65/16 is being paid to them and therefore the present petition is liable to be dismissed, for lack of bonafides.
5. In the petition on hand oral evidence was not adduced by the parties before the Family Court. Exts.A1 to A3 and Ext.B1 respectively were marked on the side of the petitioners and respondent. The rival contentions of the parties were evaluated in the light of the documentary evidence adduced by the parties and ultimately the petition was allowed. The respondent was directed to disburse Rs.1,03,300/- received by him as educational allowance from his employer during 2018-19, to petitioners 2 and 3. The Family Court has also directed that if any amount is paid to petitioners 2 and 3 towards monthly maintenance allowance in excess, it can be adjusted in Rs.1,03,300/- directed by this order to be paid to them. The 1 st petitioner being the mother, was allowed to receive the amount on behalf of minor petitioners 2 and 3. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Census Operations, Kerala was also directed to deposit the amount payable as educational allowance in the joint R.P.(FC) No. 317 of 2020 -:5:- account of petitioners 2 and 3. The mother of 2 nd and 3rd petitioners was directed to furnish particulars of the account opened jointly in the names of petitioners 2 and 3 before the Deputy Director for enabling deposit of educational allowance therein.
7. It is contended by Smt.Sherly Thomas, the learned counsel for the respondent/husband that the court below is not justified in passing the above order. According to her, the petitioners are disentitled to get such an order. According to her, though as per the terms of compromise arrived at by the parties in MC No.276/2009, the petitioners are entitled to get educational allowances in addition to the monthly maintenance allowance agreed by the respondent to be paid to them. By order passed in MC No.65/2016, the monthly maintenance allowance payable each to petitioners 2 and 3 was modified to Rs.2,500/-. According to her, in that order no mention is made of the educational allowance stands ordered in favour of petitioners 2 and 3, and therefore, they are not entitled to receive it further. According to her, the Family Court is highly unjustified in the context in directing the Deputy Director, Directorate of Census R.P.(FC) No. 317 of 2020 -:6:- Operations, by the order assailed to deposit the educational allowance for the period 2018-19, in the joint account of petitioners 2 and 3 opened by 1 st petitioner on their behalf. The learned counsel has also contended that as per order passed in CMP No.225/19 in MC No.65/16, the Family Court, Muvattupuzha has recorded that a total sum of Rs.1,17,000/- has already been paid which is Rs.500/- in excess to the sum actually payable. According to the learned counsel, since an excess sum of Rs.500/- stands in the credit of petitioners 2 and 3, they are not entitled to any amount towards educational allowance for the period 2018-19.
8. The order passed in MC No.276/09 was following arrival of terms in compromise among the parties to it. The respondent had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- to the 1 st petitioner as monthly maintenance allowance to her two minor children, who are petitioners 2 and 3. Entire educational allowances were also agreed by the respondent to be paid to the children on receipts evidencing expenditures were produced. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was also agreed by the respondent to be paid to the children out of his retirement benefits on his retirement from service (Census R.P.(FC) No. 317 of 2020 -:7:- Directorate, Ministry of Home Affairs). MC No.65/16 was filed later to that by the petitioners seeking for modification of the monthly maintenance allowance stands ordered in favour of petitioners 2 and 3. In the said MC, the respondent had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- each to petitioners 2 and 3. Accordingly, the Family Court has allowed the M.C and directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,500/- each to petitioners 2 and 3 as monthly maintenance allowance from the date of the petition. The 1st petitioner was also permitted to receive the amount for and on behalf of petitioners 2 and 3. Admittedly, the respondent had received Rs.1,03,300/- as educational allowance for the period 2018-19 from his employer i.e. Directorate of Census, Kerala. As per the terms of compromise arrived at in the original M.C, the respondent had agreed to pay the educational expenses of the children subject to production of receipts. Monthly maintenance allowance stands ordered in M.C .No.276/09 alone was sought to be modified by filing M.C. No.65/16. Modification was not sought for the other aspects stand compromised originally. Therefore, those are maintained. In MP No.148/20 the claim of the petitioners was that a sum of Rs.1,03,300/- R.P.(FC) No. 317 of 2020 -:8:- received by the respondent from his employer towards educational allowance to petitioners 2 and 3 are kept by the respondent himself.
9. Admittedly such a sum was received by the respondent from his employer. As per the compromise arrived at by the parties originally, petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to receive the amount. Therefore, Family Court, Muvattupuzha is justified in passing the impugned order directing Directorate of Census Operations, Kerala to deposit the educational allowance stands ordered by them in the joint account of petitioners 2 and 3, on particulars of such an account being furnished by the 1 st petitioner. Petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to receive the educational allowance as per the terms of compromise originally arrived at by the parties in MC No.276/09 which stands neither modified nor cancelled by order passed in MC No.65/16. For the above reasons, interference is uncalled for.
RP(FC) fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH, JUDGE.
ttb R.P.(FC) No. 317 of 2020 -:9:- APPENDIX OF RPFC 317/2020 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT AT MUVATUPUZHA IN MP NO 148/2020 IN MC No.276/2009 ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY M.P.NO 225/2019 IN M.C NO 65/2016 DATED 19.12.2020 //TRUE COPY// Sd/-
P.S. TO JUDGE