K. Surendran vs C.Girijambika
2021 Latest Caselaw 16008 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
                                &
        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
   MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1943
                  MAT.APPEAL NO. 594 OF 2015
  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.458/2012 OF FAMILY COURT,
                NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
                          ----------
APPELLANT/S:

          K. SURENDRAN, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI,
          RATHEESH BHAVAN, MULLELAVINMOODU,
          KARAKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
          BY ADV SRI.M.DINESH


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     C.GIRIJAMBIKA, W/O.SURENDRAN,
          CHANDRA VILASOM, VAZHUTHOOR,
          NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
    2     SREEJITH, S/O.GIRIJAMBIKA,
          CHANDRA VILASOM, VAZHUTHOOR,
          NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
          BY ADVS.
          SMT.K.KUSUMAM
          SRI.K.KALESH


THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Mat.Appeal No.594/2015                 2



                                JUDGMENT

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

This appeal was filed in the year 2015

challenging modification of the maintenance awarded

to the respondents. The second respondent admittedly

has become major. By the impugned judgment, a

maintenance has been altered from Rs.600/- to

Rs.3,000/-. Rs.600/- was granted on 21.6.2003. The

present enhancement was ordered on 10.07.2014. The

Family Court noted the power of alteration of the

amount of maintenance as referable under Section 25

of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the appellant was retired from the

service and therefore, he cannot be saddled with huge

liability to pay the amount.

We do not find any reason to interfere with the

modification made by the Family Court. The

enhancement of Rs.3,000/- is a modest. The appellant

was admittedly an employee in the public sector

undertaking. We, therefore, found that the appeal has

no merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed. The

parties are directed to suffer their costs.

Sd/-A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

Sd/-DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

ln

/true copy/