Kerala High Court
N.Dileep Kumar vs Ammini Varghese on 13 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 23RD VAISAKHA, 1944
RPFC NO. 317 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MP No. 148/2020 IN MC 276/2009
OF FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 19.11.2020
REVISION PETITIONER/ORIGINAL RESPONDENT:
N.DILEEP KUMAR
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O NARAYANAN, PRESENTLY WORKING AS CHAWKIDAR IN
CENSUS DIRECTORATE, MINISTRY HOME AFFAIRS,
CGO COMPLEX,RESIDING AT QUARTERS NO 1, TYPE-1,
VELLAYANI P.O.POONKULAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 522.
BY ADV SHERLY THOMAS
RESPONDENTS/ORIGINAL PETITIONERS:
1 AMMINI VARGHESE
AGED 50 YEARS
D/O VARGHESE, EDAPPURATH HOUSE, URULANTHANNI
KARA, KUTTAMPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 681.
2 ADAM SMITH,
AGED 18 YEARS
S/O DILEEP, EDAPPURATH HOUSE, URULANTHANNI KARA,
KUTTAMPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 681.
3 FREDIMON,
AGED 13 YEARS
S/O DILEEP, EDAPPURATH HOUSE, URULANTHANNI KARA,
KUTTAMPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 681.
BY ADV SMT.ATHIRA A.MENON
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 13.12.2021, THE COURT ON 13.05.2022
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.(FC) No. 317 of 2020
-:2:-
MARY JOSEPH, J.
-----------------------
R.P.(FC) No. 317 of 2020
-----------------------
Dated this the 13th day of May, 2022
ORDER
The order passed by Family Court, Muvattupuzha in M.P.
No.148/2020 in M.C. No.276/09 is under challenge in the revision
on hand. The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.P.
No.148/2020 and also in M.C. No.276/09. The respondents
herein are the petitioners in M.P. No.148/202 as well as in M.C.
No.276/09. The parties to this revision will hereinafter be
referred to as petitioners and respondent in accordance with
their status in the original M.C.
2. In M.P. No.148/202 a direction is sought to the
respondent to pay a total sum of Rs.1,03,300/- to petitioners 2
and 3 and also for a direction to Deputy Director, Directorate of
Census Operations, Kerala to deposit the educational allowances
granted to the children of the respondent in the joint account of
petitioners 2 and 3.
R.P.(FC) No. 317 of 2020
3. Originally, MC No.276/09 was filed by the petitioners
before Family Court, Muvattupuzha seeking for monthly
maintenance allowance. A compromise was entered and based
on that an order as passed on 08.02.2012 and the respondent
was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- to the 1 st petitioner as
monthly maintenance allowance in favour of petitioners 2 and 3.
As per the terms of the compromise, the respondent has also
agreed to pay the entire educational expenses of petitioners 2
and 3 on production of receipts of fee. Thereafter, MC No.65/16
was filed and vide order passed on 07.02.2019, the original order
granting monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of
Rs.1,500/- was modified and enhanced to Rs.2,500/- each to
petitiioners 2 and 3. Educational allowances were paid by the
respondent to petitioners 2 and 3 till 2017 and thereafter the
payment was defaulted. The respondent had accepted a total
sum of Rs.1,03,300/- as educational allowance from his office for
the period 2018-19, but failed to pay the same to petitioners 2
and 3. Aggrieved thereby, M.P. No.148/2020 was filed.
4. The respondent has stated in the objection filed that
petitioners 2 and 3 are not entitled to seek for a direction to pay
R.P.(FC) No. 317 of 2020
educational allowance. The maintenance allowance payable to
petitioners 2 and 3 as per order passed in M.C. No.65/16 is being
paid to them and therefore the present petition is liable to be
dismissed, for lack of bonafides.
5. In the petition on hand oral evidence was not adduced by
the parties before the Family Court. Exts.A1 to A3 and Ext.B1
respectively were marked on the side of the petitioners and
respondent. The rival contentions of the parties were evaluated
in the light of the documentary evidence adduced by the parties
and ultimately the petition was allowed. The respondent was
directed to disburse Rs.1,03,300/- received by him as
educational allowance from his employer during 2018-19, to
petitioners 2 and 3. The Family Court has also directed that if
any amount is paid to petitioners 2 and 3 towards monthly
maintenance allowance in excess, it can be adjusted in
Rs.1,03,300/- directed by this order to be paid to them. The 1 st
petitioner being the mother, was allowed to receive the amount
on behalf of minor petitioners 2 and 3. The Deputy Director,
Directorate of Census Operations, Kerala was also directed to
deposit the amount payable as educational allowance in the joint
R.P.(FC) No. 317 of 2020
account of petitioners 2 and 3. The mother of 2 nd and 3rd
petitioners was directed to furnish particulars of the account
opened jointly in the names of petitioners 2 and 3 before the
Deputy Director for enabling deposit of educational allowance
therein.
7. It is contended by Smt.Sherly Thomas, the learned
counsel for the respondent/husband that the court below is not
justified in passing the above order. According to her, the
petitioners are disentitled to get such an order. According to her,
though as per the terms of compromise arrived at by the parties
in MC No.276/2009, the petitioners are entitled to get
educational allowances in addition to the monthly maintenance
allowance agreed by the respondent to be paid to them. By
order passed in MC No.65/2016, the monthly maintenance
allowance payable each to petitioners 2 and 3 was modified to
Rs.2,500/-. According to her, in that order no mention is made of
the educational allowance stands ordered in favour of petitioners
2 and 3, and therefore, they are not entitled to receive it further.
According to her, the Family Court is highly unjustified in the
context in directing the Deputy Director, Directorate of Census
R.P.(FC) No. 317 of 2020
Operations, by the order assailed to deposit the educational
allowance for the period 2018-19, in the joint account of
petitioners 2 and 3 opened by 1 st petitioner on their behalf. The
learned counsel has also contended that as per order passed in
CMP No.225/19 in MC No.65/16, the Family Court, Muvattupuzha
has recorded that a total sum of Rs.1,17,000/- has already been
paid which is Rs.500/- in excess to the sum actually payable.
According to the learned counsel, since an excess sum of
Rs.500/- stands in the credit of petitioners 2 and 3, they are
not entitled to any amount towards educational allowance for the
period 2018-19.
8. The order passed in MC No.276/09 was following arrival
of terms in compromise among the parties to it. The respondent
had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- to the 1 st petitioner as
monthly maintenance allowance to her two minor children, who
are petitioners 2 and 3. Entire educational allowances were also
agreed by the respondent to be paid to the children on receipts
evidencing expenditures were produced. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
was also agreed by the respondent to be paid to the children out
of his retirement benefits on his retirement from service (Census
R.P.(FC) No. 317 of 2020
Directorate, Ministry of Home Affairs). MC No.65/16 was filed
later to that by the petitioners seeking for modification of the
monthly maintenance allowance stands ordered in favour of
petitioners 2 and 3. In the said MC, the respondent had agreed
to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- each to petitioners 2 and 3.
Accordingly, the Family Court has allowed the M.C and directed
the respondent to pay Rs.2,500/- each to petitioners 2 and 3 as
monthly maintenance allowance from the date of the petition.
The 1st petitioner was also permitted to receive the amount for
and on behalf of petitioners 2 and 3. Admittedly, the respondent
had received Rs.1,03,300/- as educational allowance for the
period 2018-19 from his employer i.e. Directorate of Census,
Kerala. As per the terms of compromise arrived at in the original
M.C, the respondent had agreed to pay the educational expenses
of the children subject to production of receipts. Monthly
maintenance allowance stands ordered in M.C .No.276/09 alone
was sought to be modified by filing M.C. No.65/16. Modification
was not sought for the other aspects stand compromised
originally. Therefore, those are maintained. In MP No.148/20
the claim of the petitioners was that a sum of Rs.1,03,300/-
R.P.(FC) No. 317 of 2020
received by the respondent from his employer towards
educational allowance to petitioners 2 and 3 are kept by the
respondent himself.
9. Admittedly such a sum was received by the respondent
from his employer. As per the compromise arrived at by the
parties originally, petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to receive the
amount. Therefore, Family Court, Muvattupuzha is justified in
passing the impugned order directing Directorate of Census
Operations, Kerala to deposit the educational allowance stands
ordered by them in the joint account of petitioners 2 and 3, on
particulars of such an account being furnished by the 1 st
petitioner. Petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to receive the
educational allowance as per the terms of compromise originally
arrived at by the parties in MC No.276/09 which stands neither
modified nor cancelled by order passed in MC No.65/16. For the
above reasons, interference is uncalled for.
RP(FC) fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH,
JUDGE.
ttb
R.P.(FC) No. 317 of 2020
APPENDIX OF RPFC 317/2020
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE FAMILY COURT AT MUVATUPUZHA IN
MP NO 148/2020 IN MC No.276/2009
ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY M.P.NO 225/2019
IN M.C NO 65/2016 DATED 19.12.2020
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/-
P.S. TO JUDGE
