Kerala High Court
Vishal G. Nair vs Sreedevi P.S on 21 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 1ST VAISAKHA, 1944
RPFC NO. 163 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.07.2018 IN M.C.NO.157/2016 OF FAMILY COURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
VISHAL G. NAIR,
AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI,
MAMPAZHAMADOM, MULAKKUZHA P.O.,
KARACKADU, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, MAMPAZHAMADOM, MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE,
KARACKADU P.O., CHENGANNUR TALUK, 689 504
BY ADVS. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
SREEDEVI P.S., AGED 32 YEARS,
PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE,
KANJEETTUKARA P.O.,
AYROOR SOUTH, AYROOR VILLAGE 689 611.
BY ADVS. SRI.CHERIAN GEE VARGHESE
SRI.P.HARIDAS
SRI.BIJU P.C
SRI.RISHIKESH HARIDAS
SRI.HARIHARAN BALACHANDRAN
SRI.R.B.BALACHANDRAN
SRI.RENJI GEORGE CHERIAN
SRI.P.C.SHIJIN
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.10.2021, THE COURT ON 21.04.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P(FC) No.163 of 2019
-:2:-
MARY JOSEPH, J.
------------------------
R.P.(FC) No.163 of 2019
------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of April, 2022
ORDER
The order assailed in the revision on hand is the one passed by
Family Court, Pathanamthitta (for short, 'the court below') on 16.07.2018
in M.C No.157/2016. The revision petitioner is the respondent in the
M.C.
2. For the sake of clarity, the parties to this revision will
hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner and the respondent in
accordance with their status in the M.C.
3. In M.C No.157/2016, the court below has directed the
respondent to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- as monthly maintenance
allowance in a claim raised by the petitioner for the sum itself.
4. The contention of the respondent was that though he had been
working at Bahrain, he does not have a permanent job and therefore is
unable to pay the sum now stands ordered as monthly maintenance
allowance in favour the petitioner. According to him, since obligation to
R.P(FC) No.163 of 2019
maintain his aged parents is also on his shoulders he finds it difficult to
pay the sum stands ordered against him. According to him, the court
below overlooked various aspects pleaded and established by the
respondent, while passing the impugned order.
5. The question posed for consideration being improper
appreciation of the evidence on record, an idea about the evidence
adduced by the parties in the M.C is important and therefore, is looked
into.
6. As per the pleading of the petitioner in the M.C., the
respondent was working in a company namely, Armcon Company at
Bahrain as Block Machine Operator and was getting Rs.75,000/- per
month as salary. Her further plea was that the respondent was also
deriving Rs.10,000/- per month as income from his family property. It
was also her case that a sum of Rs.3,000/- was required to meet her
expenses for food, Rs.2,000/- for clothes, Rs.2,000/- for medicines and
Rs.1,000/- for other miscellaneous expenses. Accordingly, a claim for a
total sum of Rs.8,000/- was raised in the M.C.
7. Counter statement was filed by the respondent through his
power of attorney holder. Contentions taken were that the petitioner was
R.P(FC) No.163 of 2019
undergoing treatment for mental ailment since 06.05.2006 and the
marriage was conducted suppressing the said factum, that she went to
her parental home on 21.05.2015 without reasons and is presently
residing with her parents, that 70 cents of landed properties was owned
by her wherein 150 rubber trees were also planted wherefrom
Rs.10,000/- is being derived as income and that he is having no
permanent job at Bahrain and with the income earned, he has to
maintain his parents and also to meet his own expenses. The averment
of the respondent regarding the job and income of the petitioner was also
denied.
8. The petitioner was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 was marked in
evidence. Respondent himself was examined as RW1. Based on the
above evidence, the court below has found that the petitioner is entitled
to get monthly maintenance allowance from the respondent at the rate of
Rs.8,000/-.
9. It is an admitted factum that the respondent was working at
Bahrain at the relevant time when the M.C was filed by the petitioner. It
was admitted by the respondent during cross examination that he has
been working at Bahrain since 14 years and was drawing a salary of
R.P(FC) No.163 of 2019
Rs.30,000/-. With regard to the mental illness alleged against the
petitioner, it was clarified by the respondent during cross examination
that she would become violent whenever her request to visit parental
home is declined. It was further clarified by the respondent that for the
alleged mental ailments, the petitioner was never taken for any
treatment by him.
10. From the evidence it is established that the respondent was
getting a salary of Rs.30,000/- monthly from his job at Bahrain. It can
also be derived from the oral evidence of the respondent that, his aged
parents are taken care of by him. Though the respondent has alleged in
the counter statement that the petitioner was having landed property and
deriving income from the rubber plantations standing therein, he did not
substantiate the same before the court below by materials. It appears
that the monthly maintenance allowance was fixed by the court below at
the rate of Rs.8,000/- after having appreciated the evidence in the
proper perspective.
11. But, it is noticed that the petitioner has restricted her claim
for monthly maintenance allowance by indicating specific sums under
different heads viz. food, clothes, medicines and miscellaneous expenses.
R.P(FC) No.163 of 2019
Thus a total sum of Rs.8,000/- was claimed. It is pertinent to note that
while adducing evidence, the petitioner as PW1 has not spoken a single
word about ailments if any with which she was suffering from at the
relevant time. She has also gone to the extent of denying the allegation
of the respondent that she was suffering from mental illness. Therefore,
on what basis Rs.2,000/- was claimed by the petitioner for medicines
cannot be identified from the evidence adduced by her. However,
Rs.2,000/- monthly was claimed by her for medicines and Rs.1,000/- for
miscellaneous expenses. Therefore, Rs.2,000/- stands ordered can also
be taken as a sum allowed for treatment generally and other
miscellaneous expenses and Rs.1,000/- separately granted under the
head miscellaneous expenses can be deducted.
12. Since the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence regarding
her ailments, the court below ought not to have granted Rs.2,000/- itself
as claimed by her towards medicines.
13. In the above circumstances, this Court is inclined to modify
the monthly maintenance allowance stands ordered in favour of the
petitioner by reducing Rs.1,000/- from it.
R.P(FC) No.163 of 2019
In the result, R.P(F.C) is allowed in part. The impugned
order is modified to the extent of reducing Rs.1,000/- from Rs.8,000/-,
the total sum stands ordered as monthly maintenance allowance. The
respondent shall see that the arrears of maintenance allowance at the
modified rate of Rs.7,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner within a
period of two months from the date of this order.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH
JUDGE
JJ
