Sunil.S vs Anitha.G.Kumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 14294 Ker

RPFC NO. 252 OF 2018                    1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
        THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943
                          RPFC NO. 252 OF 2018
    AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 72/2017 OF FAMILY COURT,
                    NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

            SUNIL.S,S/O. SREEKUMARAN, AGED 53 YEARS, SUNIL BHAVAN,
            KALLIKKAD, MYLAKKARA P.O.,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
            SRI.NAVANEETH D.PAI



RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

    1       ANITHA.G.KUMAR,
            D/O. KAMALAM, 'KAMALAM' KURUPUZHA, ELAVATTOM P.O.,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

    2       NEERAJA
            D/O. SUNIL,

    3       NIDHI
            D/O. SUNIL

            (RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, THEY ARE REPRESENTED
            BY THEIR MOTHER, THE 1ST RESPONDENT)

            BY ADVS.
            SMT.BHANU THILAK
            SRI.DIPU JAMES
            SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
            SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
            SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN
            SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
            SRI.R.SREEGITH


     THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RPFC NO. 252 OF 2018                  2

                                O R D E R

The petitioner/husband who was serving as a

Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records (now retired

from service) came up against the maintenance order

at the rate of Rs.6,000/- to his wife, Rs.4,000/- to

the second petitioner and Rs.6,000/- to the third

petitioner in M.C.No.72/2017 of the Family Court,

Nedumangad.

2. The first respondent is the legally wedded

wife. Paternity of respondents 2 and 3 also not in

dispute. This court can take judicial notice of the

factum of income of the husband taking into account

of his employment as Deputy Director of Survey and

Land Records and the quantum of pension after his

retirement. The respondents are entitled to a

standard of living which they have accustomed while

living along with the petitioner. No case of job or

income to the respondents brought out. What is

ordered by the Family Court is only a meager amount

of Rs.6,000/- to the wife, Rs.4,000/- to the second

respondent and Rs.6,000/- to the third respondent.

There is no sufficient reason, much less any reason,

to interfere with the finding of the Family Court.

Though he had advanced a case that she is living in

adultery, the same was not raised for getting any

divorce. As such, it can only be considered as a

pretext to wriggle out of the liability.

Hence, the R.P(FC)fails, dismissed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE

msp