Sreekumaran Nair vs Divya
2021 Latest Caselaw 22406 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
                                   &
             THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                     MAT.APPEAL NO. 1292 OF 2016
  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.07.2016 IN OP 2005/2011 OF
                 FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER:

          SREEKUMARAN NAIR
          VAISAKH BHAVAN, VANDITHADAM, MOOVELIKKARA,
          KUNNATHUKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN
          SMT.V.S.RAKHEE
          SMT.SUSHYA RAJAN


RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

    1     DIVYA
          MOHANAVILSAM BUNGALOW, MALAYADI.P.O, PALUNKAL
          VILLAGE, VILAVIMOODU TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT,
          TAMIL NADU, PIN-671023.

    2     VIDYA
          MOHANAVILSAM BUNGALOW, MALAYADI.P.O, PALUNKAL
          VILLAGE, VILAVIMOODU TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT,
          TAMIL NADU, PIN-671023.

          BY ADV SMT.M.HEMALATHA


THIS MATRIMONIAL      APPEAL HAVING      COME UP   FOR ADMISSION   ON
09.11.2021,    THE    COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 MAT.APPEAL NO. 1292 OF 2016

                                    2



                          J U D G M E N T

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The appellant is the father of the respondents.

The respondents are female children born in the wedlock

of the appellant with the mother of the respondents.

Respondents in the original petition before the Family

Court raised two claims, one for enhancement of

maintenance from the appellant and the other for

marriage expenses.

2. The Family Court found that the respondents

are not eligible to get enhanced maintenance for the

reason that they have completed their degree course.

However, the Court found that the respondents are

eligible to get a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- each towards

their marriage expenses along with 6% interest. This is

questioned in this appeal.

3. We heard Shri.Biju Balakrishnan, learned

counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt.Hemalatha, MAT.APPEAL NO. 1292 OF 2016

the learned counsel appearing for respondents.

4. According to the learned counsel for the

appellant, the respondents are well employed and they

are getting more income than the appellant. It is also

submitted that the 1st respondent got married and well

settled with her husband.

5. It is to be noted that rights and obligations

of the parties will have to be decided with reference

to the date of cause of action. Admittedly, both the

respondents were unmarried at the time of filing the

cases. In a case like this for marriage expenses,

subsequent events only fortify the claim made by the

respondents, inasmuch as that it would show that

marriage expenses have been incurred. There are no

fixed rules or yardstick to reckon the marriage

expenses. The court made a guess work taking note of

the likelihood of the expenses to be incurred. A

Division Bench of this Court in Ambika v. Aravindakshan MAT.APPEAL NO. 1292 OF 2016

[2018 (1) KLT 125] held that father cannot be saddled

to shoulder the expenses lavishly spent in connection

with the marriage. Under Section 20 of Hindu Adoption

and Maintenance Act, 1956, the father is bound to meet

reasonable wants of unmarried daughter. We are paused

for a moment what could be the criteria to reward

marriage expenses. Perhaps, purchasing jewelleries and

spending money for marriage receptions are to be taken

for calculating marriage expenses. The respondents'

demand is for Rs.10,00,000/-. The Family Court made

guess work and awarded Rs.3,00,000/- each, totaling

Rs.6,00,000/-. The Family Court also awarded 6%

interest. We, at the outset, note that the award of 6%

interest was improper. The respondents were not

creditors and the Court has only to consider what would

be the reasonable want or requirement of the

respondents towards marriage expenses. It is not a case

where the respondents sought reimbursement of the MAT.APPEAL NO. 1292 OF 2016

amount expended for the marriage. In such

circumstances, the interest awarded, according to us,

are to be set aside.

6. Putting our mind into the question that looms

large as above regarding the marriage expenses, as

already noted, it is only more of a guess work rather

than working on any concrete yardstick or measures. We

also, therefore, adopt such a course to put an end to

this litigation. We are of the view that a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) (2.5 lakhs + 2.5

lakhs) shall be granted as marriage expenses to the

respondents. The amount shall be paid within a period

of six months from today. If the amount is not paid

within the above six months, it can be recovered along

with 6% interest from today. We impose interest by way

of penalty on default. The amount already in deposit

pursuant to the interim order can be withdrawn by the

respondents. The amount so withdrawn shall be adjusted MAT.APPEAL NO. 1292 OF 2016

against the decree granted by us.

7. In view of the modified decree as above, we

direct the Family Court not to enforce any coercive

steps initiated against the appellant. We make it clear

that if the appellant commits any default, the Family

Court can enforce such steps after the expiry of the

time granted by this Court.

This Mat. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

Sd/-

SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE AS