Kerala High Court
Sunildas vs Ramya Sunildas on 9 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 20TH MAGHA,1942
RPFC.No.297 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 425/2014 OF FAMILY
COURT,THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER:
SUNILDAS, AGED 43,S/O. K. PRABHAKARAN,
KIZHUVEETTIL HOUSE,P.O ERUMBANAM,
CHITHRAPPUZHA, THIRUVAMKULAM VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM
TALUK PIN 682 309
BY SUNILDAS(PARTY IN PERSON)
RESPONDENT:
RAMYA SUNILDAS, AGED 29,W/O. SUNILDAS, D/O.
RAMESH PALAZHY,PALAZHY HOUSE,PALAKKAL
AVINISSERY P.O & VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 306
R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.CHANDRASEKHARAN
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 09.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
RPFC.No.297 OF 2017
..2..
ORDER
Dated this the 9th day of February 2021
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J
There is no representation for the revision
petitioner. However, we perused the records in his
absence.
2. This R.P. (FC) No. 297 of 2017 was filed
challenging an order in M.C No. 425 of 2014 on the file
of the Family Court, Thrissur. By the impugned order,
the revision petitioner was directed to pay
maintenance at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six
Thousand Only) per month to the respondent from
the date of petition. This order is under challenge in
this revision.
RPFC.No.297 OF 2017
..3..
3. The revision petitioner and the respondent
herein are husband and wife, married in the year
2011. In the wedlock, a child was born. M.C No. 425
of 2014 was filed for maintenance for the respondent
in the revision petition alone. It appears that at that
time the child was in the custody of the revision
petitioner. The revision petitioner resisted the claim
for maintenance stating that he has no regular
income.
4. The Family Court noted that the respondent
has no employment and her own income. It was also
found that the revision petitioner is an MBA degree
holder. The Family Court observed that even a coolie
would get Rs. 700/- per day and therefore, assessing
RPFC.No.297 OF 2017
..4..
his monthly income as Rs. 40,000/- per month by the
respondent cannot be considered as an exaggerated
amount. The respondent herein claimed sum of
Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance. The Family
court awarded Rs. 6,000/- as maintenance.
We do not find any error in the order passed by
the Family Court. The revision petitioner is an able
bodied person. There is nothing wrong for the Family
Court in taking note of the prevailing labour charge in
the State. The revision petitioner was bound to
disclose the nature of his employment or source of
income. In fact, this matter was considered along
with the connected matters. Therein, he has
produced certain documents regarding the loan
RPFC.No.297 OF 2017
..5..
transaction. In such circumstances, it was incumbent
upon the revision petitioner to prove the actual
income derived by him from different sources. The
revision petitioner having failed to avail his
opportunity, he cannot assail the order of
maintenance, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court.
Accordingly, R.P (FC) is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
JUDGE
PR
RPFC.No.297 OF 2017
..6..
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR THE
PAYMENT OF RS.45,000/-
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR THE
PAYMENT OF RS.60,000/-
