T.Rameshan vs Shynimol.P
2022 Latest Caselaw 10573 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                         PRESENT
       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
                            &
        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 19TH ASWINA, 1944
               MAT.APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2021
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2020 IN O.P.(DIVORCE)
      NO.51 OF 2017 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

         T.RAMESHAN
         AGED 50 YEARS, S/O LATE CHATHUKKUTTY,
         THOTTATHIL HOUSE, MANATHANA, PERAVOOR P.O,
         KANNUR DISTRICT-670674.
         BY ADVS.
         C.D.ANIL
         SRI.OMAR SALIM
         SHRI.ARUN T.
         SHRI.SRAVAN M.S.


RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

         SHYNIMOL P.,
         D/O P.V.KUNHIRAMAN,
         RESIDING AT PUTHIYA VEETTIL, KIZHAKKEKKARA,
         CHEEMENI.P.O, CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG
         TALUK,
         KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671313.
         BY ADVS.
         ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
         K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)


     THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 11.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                    2
Mat.Appeal No.251 of 2021


                             JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The appellant is the respondent in O.P.(Divorce) No.51 of

2017 on the file of the Family Court, Kasaragod. The said

original petition was one filed by the respondent-wife claiming

past maintenance and return of gold ornaments. By the

judgment dated 31.01.2020, the Family Court allowed the

original petition in part, granting a decree in favour of the

respondent allowing past maintenance at the rate of

Rs.3,000/- per month for the period from 21.03.2015 to

17.01.2017. The claim for return of 25 sovereigns of gold

ornaments, or in the alternative, market value of the same,

stands rejected. Challenging the judgment and decree of the

Family Court to the extent of decreeing past maintenance in

O.P.(Divorce) No.51 of 2017, the appellant-husband has filed

this appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the

Family Courts Act, 1984.

2. On 10.01.2022, when this appeal came up for

consideration along with Mat.Appeal No.248 of 2021, both

parties were directed to appear before the Nodal Officer,

Mat.Appeal No.251 of 2021

Ernakulam Mediation Centre, in the premises of this Court, on

19.01.2022, in order to explore the possibility of settlement

by mediation. The matter could not be settled in mediation.

3. On 28.09.2022, when this matter came up for

consideration along with the connected matter, during the

course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant-

husband pointed out that the respondent-wife had already

contracted another marriage. The learned counsel for the

respondent-wife sought time to get instructions.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-

husband and the learned counsel for the respondent-wife.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent-wife would

submit that the wife had already contracted another marriage.

6. O.P.(Divorce) No.51 of 2017 is one filed by the

respondent-wife claiming past maintenance at the rate of

Rs.3,000/- per month for the period from 21.03.2015 to

17.01.2017. Before the Family Court, that original petition

was tried along with O.P.(Divorce) No.50 of 2017, which is one

filed by the respondent-wife seeking a decree of divorce under

Mat.Appeal No.251 of 2021

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

7. Before the Family Court, the wife was examined as

PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked. On the side of the

husband, he was examined as RW1. The Manager of Kalyan

Silks was examined as RW2. Exts.B1 to B3(a) were marked on

the side of the wife.

8. After considering the pleadings and evidence on

record, the Family Court arrived at a conclusion that the wife is

entitled for past maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per

month for the period referred to above. However, the claim

made by the wife for return of gold ornaments was declined, in

the absence of sufficient evidence. The reasoning of the Family

Court for granting past maintenance to the wife at the rate of

Rs.3,000/- per month is neither perverse nor patently illegal.

Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel on

both sides, we find no reason to interfere with the finding of the

Family Court while decreeing O.P.(Divorce) No.51 of 2021 to the

above extent. In the above circumstances, this appeal fails and

the same is accordingly dismissed.

Mat.Appeal No.251 of 2021

9. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit

that the appellant may be granted a breathing time to pay the

past maintenance in terms of the decree of the Family Court.

10. Having considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel on both sides, the appellant-husband is

permitted to pay the entire decree debt in two equal monthly

instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before

28.11.2022 and the second instalment on or before

28.12.2022. In case of failure to pay the same, it will be open

to the respondent-wife to proceed with the execution petition.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE dkr