Manoj Kumar.T vs Sulekha K.S
2022 Latest Caselaw 7021 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
        FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                         RPFC NO. 222 OF 2021


AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.07.2021 IN M.C.NO.118/2018 OF FAMILY
                           COURT, THIRUVALLA


REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

            MANOJ KUMAR.T.,
            AGED 48, S/O.VISWANATHA KURUP, LEKHA SADANAM HOUSE,
            THADIYOOR P.O., THELLIYOOR VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK,
            PIN-689 545.

            BY ADV. SRI.DINESH.P.T.


RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

    1       SULEKHA K.S.,
            AGED 35, D/O.LALITHA BHAI @ LATHA S.NAIR,
            RESIDING AT SURESH BHAVAN, THURUTHIKADU P.O.,
            KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE, MALLAPPALY TALUK, PIN-689 587.

    2       DEVIKA MANOJ,
            AGED 15 (MINOR)
            D/O/.MANOJ KUMAR.T., RESIDING AT SURESH BHAVAN,
            THURUTHIKADU P.O., KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE, MALLAPPALY
            TALUK, PIN-689 587.
            REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SULEKHA K.S, 1ST RESPONDENT.

    3       DHANESH KUMAR ,
            AGED 11 (MINOR), S/O.MANOJ KUMAR.T., RESIDING AT SURESH
            BHAVAN, THURUTHIKADU P.O., KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE,
            MALLAPPALY TALUK, PIN-689 587.
            REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER SULEKHA K.S, 1ST RESPONDENT.

            BY ADV. SRI. K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA)


     THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 R.P.(F.C) NO.222 OF 2021
                                      2




                                 ORDER

Dated this the 17th day of June, 2022

This revision is filed challenging an order passed by Family

Court, Thiruvalla (for short 'the court below') in

M.C.No.118/2018 which is part of a common judgment passed

on 07.07.2021.

2. Vide the order in the M.C, the court below has

declined the claim of the wife for monthly maintenance

allowance but ordered monthly maintenance allowance at the

rate of Rs.5,000/- each to two minor children. The revision

petitioner has approached this Court stating that he is incapable

to pay monthly maintenance allowance at the rates stand

ordered by the court below in favour of the children. He

canvassed for a modification of the sums stand ordered.

3. The learned counsel representing the revision

petitioner and the respondents were heard. The impugned order

is also perused.

4. Admittedly revision petitioner was employed at Gulf at

the time of marriage and was earning sufficient income. But, R.P.(F.C) NO.222 OF 2021

later he abandoned the job and landed at the hometown. At the

relevant time of consideration of the M.C, he was an Auto driver.

Evidence was not adduced by the respondent as well as the

revision petitioner to establish the actual monthly income earned

by the latter.

5. The revision petitioner has produced medical

documents before the court below to establish that he is

suffering from Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease. That was

during the period when the M.C was under consideration of the

court below. The marking of medical documents was not

opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Even in the

absence of any proof regarding the monthly income earned by

the revision petitioner at the relevant time, the court below had

taken a view that the revision petitioner being at Gulf at the time

of marriage, must have sufficient income with him and

accordingly, directed him to pay monthly maintenance allowance

at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each to the children who are

respondents 2 and 3.

6. The appreciation of evidence by the court below was

not in the proper perspective. In the above circumstances, this R.P.(F.C) NO.222 OF 2021

Court finds that reduction in the monthly maintenance allowance

stands ordered is just and reasonable.

7. In the result, R.P.(F.C) stands allowed. The order

passed in the M.C is modified by reducing the monthly

maintenance allowance stands ordered in favour of respondents

2 and 3 from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.4,000/- each.

8. This court has noticed that after passing of the order

in the M.C, no amount was paid by the revision petitioner in

favour of the respondents. For the first time, when a direction

has been issued by this Court by an interim order passed in the

revision that the revision petitioner paid Rs.50,000/- in lumpsum

towards arrears of monthly maintenance allowance. As per the

order in the M.C revision petitioner was directed to pay monthly

maintenance allowance from the date of the petition i.e from

2018.

9. In the above circumstances, this Court directs the

revision petitioner to pay half of the arrears of monthly

maintenance allowance at the rate modified by this Court in the

order within a period of one month from this day, before the

court below. The balance amount due as arrears shall be paid in R.P.(F.C) NO.222 OF 2021

four equal monthly installments commencing from the months

succeeding the month on which the first payment is made. The

revision petitioner shall also continue to pay monthly

maintenance allowance at the modified rates to respondents 2

and 3. In case of default of the revision petitioner to pay the first

part as directed by this Court, the respondents shall initiate

necessary steps to execute the order and the court below shall

pass appropriate orders.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE

NAB