Reghuthaman Nair vs Sindhu. K.V
2022 Latest Caselaw 5194 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA     AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA     VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
                              &
          THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE     SOPHY THOMAS
   TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MAY 2022 /    20TH VAISAKHA, 1944

             MAT APPEAL(EXECUTION) NO. 4 OF 2022
 AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 94/2015 IN OP 57/2009 DATED 4.3.2002
                  OF FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM

APPELLANT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR/COUNTER PETITIONER:

           REGHUTHAMAN NAIR,
           AGED 62 YEARS
           S/O. RAMANKUTTY NAIR,
           SIVASADANAM, TC 31/1246(1),
           PETTAH P.O., PALKULANGARA,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024.

           BY ADVS.
           SARATHKUMAR.T.S
           SHYAM KUMAR M.P
           JISMEMOL JAMES
           ACHANKUNJU P.C
           SALU ANNA LAWRANCE
           DAISY IRENE DANIEL

RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDERS/PETITIONERS:

    1      SINDHU. K.V.,AGED 52 YEARS,
           D/O. VIJAYAMMA KRISHNAN,
           KRISHNA BHAVAN, TC 23/530, VALIYASALA,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 036.

    2      SREE DHANYA,
           AGED 27 YEARS
           D/O. SINDHU K.V.,
           KRISHNA BHAVAN, TC 23/530, VALIYASALA,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 036.

     THIS MAT APPEAL (EXECUTION) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 MA (EXE.) NO. 4 OF 2022
                                             2




                                       JUDGMENT

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 4.3.2022 in E.P.No.94/2015

in O.P.No.57/2009 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. By the above order, the Family Court has ordered the proclamation and

sale of the property to realise the amount granted by way of maintenance to the

daughter of the petitioner.

3. We have heard Sri.Sarath Kumar T.S. the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and Smt. Vanaja, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. We find from the records that O.P.No.829/1998 was filed before the Family

Court seeking maintenance for the 2nd respondent, who is the daughter of the

petitioner. Maintenance was ordered at the rate of Rs.750/- per mensem. Later, O.P

No. 57/2009 was filed seeking enhancement of maintenance and for incidental

reliefs and by judgment dated 11.3.2015, the Original Petition was disposed of by

passing the following order:

(i) A Decree is passed allowing enhanced maintenance @ Rs. 2000/- more to the 2nd respondent (total Rs 2750/-) from the date of the petition (19.01.2009) till the 2nd respondent secure a job for her earnings or till her marriage whichever event happens earlier from the appellant and his assets.

(ii) The 2nd respondent is allowed to realize Rs. 1,53,637/- being 2/3rd of the education expenses for the 2nd respondent spent by the 1st respondent. 1st respondent is allowed to realize the same from the appellant and his assets since she has contributed the whole education expenses.

MA (EXE.) NO. 4 OF 2022

(iii) The 2nd respondent is allowed to realise Rs. 6,70,000/- being 2/3rd of the marriage expenses from the appellant and his assets. Appellant shall pay off the said amount within 60 days from 11.03.2015 failing which the said amount will bear interest @ 9% per annum from the date of decree till relization from the appellant and his assets.

5. When the petitioner refused to comply with the award, execution

petition was filed as E.P.No.94/2015. In the meantime, the petitioner herein had

preferred Mat. Appeal No.524/2015 challenging the order passed by the Family

Court granting maintenance and by judgment dated 27.02.2020 the same was

dismissed. The petitioner challenged the said order by preferring a review petition

which also stands dismissed.

6. Sri. T.S.Sarath Kumar, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner

is the owner of an item of property having an extent of about 12 cents situated in

Pettah Village and he intends to dispose of the property and the proceeds shall be

used to clear off the amounts due to his daughter. According to the learned

counsel, if the decree is executed by sale of his residential property, it would result

in grave hardship. The learned counsel would also contend that the Family Court has

erred in passing the award in O.P.No.57/2009.

7. Smt. Vanaja, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents

pointed out that the 2nd respondent is now 26 years of age. The petition for

maintenance was originally filed more than a decade back and the enhancement

was ordered in the year 2015. The challenge raised by the petitioner has been

repelled by this Court as well. It is submitted that the attempt of the petitioner is

only to delay the proceedings and nothing more.

MA (EXE.) NO. 4 OF 2022

8. Having considered the facts and circumstances and sequence of events,

we do not think that the petitioner has made out any grounds for interference. The

order of maintenance was passed about a decade back and there is no case for the

petitioner that any amount has been paid to date. The enhancement was ordered in

2015 and more than 7 years have elapsed. No legal grounds have been raised to

impugn the proceedings in execution. The 2nd respondent, who was a minor when

maintenance was ordered, is now 26 years. We find no reason to interfere.

This MAT Appeal will stand dismissed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

Sd/-

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE

avs