Kerala High Court
C.K.Mani vs Sasikala @ Sasikala Baby 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. 44 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.10.2021 IN M.C.NO.391/2017 OF
FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
C.K.MANI, AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O.ACHUTHAN, "CHERIYAKUNIYIL HOUSE",
KURAVANGAD P.O., KOYILANDY TALUK,
KOZHIKODE - 673 304.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.SAJITH
SRI.R.SUDHISH
SMT.M.MANJU
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SASIKALA @ SASIKALA BABY, AGED 44 YEARS,
D/O.VELAYUDHAN, "ATTAVAYALIL HOUSE", KOLLAM P.O.,
KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE - 673 307 (NOW RESIDING AT
FLAT B-20, N.G.O.QUARTERS, VELLIMADUKUNNU,
KOZHIKODE - 673 012.
2 NANDANA, AGED 21 YEARS,
D/O.MANI, FLAT B-20, N.G.O.QUARTERS,
VELLIMADUKUNNU, KOZHIKODE - 673 012.
3 BADARINATH, AGED 15 YEARS,
D/O.MANI, FLAT B - 20, N.G.O.QUARTERS,
VELLIMADUKUNNU, KOZHIKODE - 673 012
(3RD RESPONDENT REPRESENTED BY MOTHER 1ST
RESPONDENT).
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 04.02.2022, THE COURT ON 13.05.2022
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.(F.C) No. 44 of 2022 -:2:-
MARY JOSEPH, J.
-----------------------
R.P(F.C) No. 44 of 2022
-----------------------
Dated this the 13th day of May, 2022
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the respondent in
M.C.No.391/2017 pending on the files of Family Court,
Kozhikode.
2. The revision petitioner herein had filed
O.P.No.480/2016 under Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act,
1984 and Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890,
before Family Court, Kozhikode and M.C. No.391/2017 under
Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short 'Cr.P.C'). A common judgment was passed by Family Court,
Kozhikode both in the Original Petition and in the M.C. The
revision petitioner herein who was the respondent in the M.C was
directed by the Family Court to pay Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/-
each to two children born to him in his wedlock with respondent
No.1. Aggrieved by the order passed against him in the M.C, the
respondent has approached this Court in the revision on hand.
The parties will be referred to hereinafter in accordance with their
status in the M.C.
3. Contention of Sri.P.B.Sajith, the learned counsel for
the respondent was that the Family Court failed to appreciate the
evidence adduced by the parties in its proper perspective.
According to him, the first petitioner in the M.C was employed
and was earning sufficient income to maintain the children but
the Family Court failed to apply its mind to that aspect while
passing orders in the M.C. According to him, the Family Court
failed to advert to the contentions taken by the respondent that
apart from the statutory deductions, he had loan arrears also to
be paid. According to him, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/-
respectively was ordered by the Family Court without considering
material aspects having serious bearing on fixation of monthly
maintenance allowance, interference with the impugned order is
highly warranted.
4. Admittedly the respondent is employed as Confidential
Assistant in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. As per
the salary certificate produced, he was getting Rs.60,000/- as
gross salary. The statutory deductions would come to
Rs.16,438/- and the net salary is Rs.44,112/-. Admittedly
petitioner No.2 is pursuing Degree Course and petitioner No.3 is
studying in 5th standard. The respondent has no claim that he
had met with any of the expenses of the children. The children
are admittedly staying with petitioner No.1 and therefore,
naturally, expenses of the children are met with by her. Exts.A1
to A36 are medical documents pertaining to treatment availed by
petitioner No.1. The medical records were marked in evidence by
the respondent for fructifying his intention to brand petitioner
No.1 as a mentally ill person. He failed to establish the alleged
mental illness with the documents marked in evidence. He also
failed to establish the illicit connections of petitioner No.1 alleged
by him. Before the Family Court, children had established their
affinity towards petitioner No.1 and dislike to the respondent.
Accordingly the Original Petition seeking custody of children filed
by the respondent was dismissed. Though it is alleged by the
respondent that some property had already been transferred by
him in the name of petitioner No.1, that aspect was also not
established by documentary evidence.
5. In a context wherein it was established from the
documentary evidence adduced by the respondent that
petitioner No.1 had been undergoing some treatment and that he
had a take home salary of Rs.44,112/-, the Family Court has
directed him to pay Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively as
monthly maintenance allowance to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 who
respectively are students of Degree course and 5 th standard.
Indisputably, petitioner No.1 being employed is also equally
responsible to maintain the children. With the monthly
maintenance allowance stands awarded by the impugned order,
entire expenses of the children of the age cannot be fully and
satisfactorily met with. The children are with petitioner No.1 and
she had been maintaining them. Interference with the impugned
order is uncalled for.
Revision fails for the reasons and is dismissed.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH,
JUDGE.
NAB
APPENDIX OF RPFC 44/2022
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF JENMAM ASSIGNMENT DEED
BEARING NO.1014/2018 DATED 23.06.2018 OF
SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KOYILANDY.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P A TO JUDGE
