R.Pradeep Kumar vs R.Priya
2021 Latest Caselaw 14084 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
                              &
        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
  WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1943
                 MAT.APPEAL NO. 728 OF 2018
   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.2.2018 IN OP 585/2014 OF
                  FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKKARA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

         R.PRADEEP KUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS
         S/O.RADHAKRISHNA MENON,KALEECKAL
         VEEDU,AKKANATTUKARA MURI,THAZHAKKARA
         VILLAGE,MAVELIKARA TALUK,ALAPPUZHA - 690 101.

         BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
         SMT.M.BINDUDAS, SRI.K.C.HARISH


RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

    1     R.PRIYA, AGED 39, W/O.R.PRADEEP KUMAR,PATHIYARATHU
          VEEDU,KANNAMANGALAM NORTH,KANNAMANGALAM
          VILLAGE,MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA - 690 101.

    2     ATHIRA, AGED 19, D/O.R.PRIYA,PATHIYARATHU
          VEEDU,KANNAMANGALAM NORTH,KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
          MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA - 690 101.

         BY ADVS.SRI.S.ARAVIND
         SRI.P.S.RAGHUKUMAR

     THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Mat.Appeal.No.728/2018

                                  -:2:-




                          J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 7th day of July, 2021

A.Muhamed Mustaque,J.

This appeal was filed assailing the order of

maintenance passed in O.P.No.585/2014 on the files of

the Family Court, Mavelikara. The appellant is the

husband of the 1st respondent and father of the 2nd

respondent. The marriage between the appellant and the

1st respondent was solemnized on 14.5.1996. The 2 nd

respondent was born in that wedlock. The 2 nd

respondent is a major now. The 2nd respondent was a

minor when the case was filed before the Family Court.

2. The Family Court awarded maintenance at the

rate of Rs.3,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.6,000/-

to the 2nd respondent.

3. According to the appellant, the 1st respondent

is having employment and therefore she is not entitled

for the maintenance. Though the appellant was retired

from Military, he contended that he has no sufficient Mat.Appeal.No.728/2018

income to pay maintenance as awarded by the Family

Court. It is further submitted that the 1 st respondent

had unilaterally stayed away from the matrimonial

relationship and therefore she is not entitled for

maintenance.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that in spite of the award of maintenance, the

appellant has not chosen to pay any maintenance. It is

submitted that the 1st respondent is not employed and

she has no income of her own.

5. The Family Court in fact considered the income

and status of the parties and came to the conclusion

that the appellant is liable to pay maintenance as per

the impugned judgment. The appellant admittedly is a

retiree from Indian Army. The Family Court calculated

appellant's monthly income as Rs.30,000/-. It was

taking note of the amount of pension and other benefits

enjoyed by the appellant that the Family Court award

the maintenance as above. We don't find any illegality

in the above award of maintenance. The amount award is

moderate and appropriate. The Family Court in fact

appreciated all evidence and awarded the maintenance. Mat.Appeal.No.728/2018

We therefore dismiss this appeal. No order as to

costs.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE sd/-

                                  DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
                                          JUDGE
kp         True copy


          P.A. To Judge