Kerala High Court
T.Manikandan vs Ragina P. V on 6 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1945
RP(FC) NO. 120 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DTD.30.12.2021 IN COMMON ORDER IN OP
NO.1130/2017 AND M.C.NO.317/2017 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
T.MANIKANDAN
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAN,
RESIDING AT THAZHATH EDAVAN HOUSE, ANCHAMPEEDIKA,
MOTTAMMEL, KANNUR - 670331
BY ADVS.D.REETHA
P.V.VINOD (BENGALAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 RAGINA P. V
AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.GOPALAN,
PADINJARE VEEDU, MANDOOR P O, KANNUR TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
2 YADHUKRISHNAN,
AGED 8 YEARS, S/O.RAGINA (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY MOTHER
RAGINA P.V.
PADINJARE VEEDU, MANDOOR P O, KANNUR TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV RAJESH SUKUMARAN K
THIS REV.PETITION (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 31/10/2023, ALONG WITH R.P.(FC) NO.174 OF 2023 &
Mat.Appeal.314/2023, THE COURT ON 06.11.2023 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2
R.P.(FC)Nos.120 of 2022, 174 of 2023 and
Mat.Appeal No.314 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1945
RPFC NO. 174 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.12.2021 IN MC 317/2017 OF
FAMILY COURT, KANNUR
REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:
1 RAGINA P.V.
AGED 29 YEARS
D/O GOPALAN, RESIDING AT PADINJARE VEED,
MANDOOR P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670501
2 YADUKRISHNAN
MINOR AGED 8½ YEARS
S/O RAGINA P.V., REP. BY MOTHER, RAGINA P.V.,
D/O GOPALAN, AGED 29 YEARS, PADINJARE VEED,
MANDOOR P.O., KANNUR - 670501
BY ADV K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
T. MANIKANDAN
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O VIJAYAN, KOLATHUVAYAL, P.O.PAPPINISSERI,
KANNUR-670561.
BY ADVS.D.REETHA
P.V.VINOD (BENGALAM)(D/2742/1999)
C.ANCHALA(K/000717/2016)
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 31/10/2023, ALONG WITH R.P.(FC) NO.120 OF 2022 &
Mat.Appeal.314/2023, THE COURT ON 06.11.2023 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
R.P.(FC)Nos.120 of 2022, 174 of 2023 and
Mat.Appeal No.314 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1945
MAT.APPEAL NO. 314 OF 2023
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DTD.30.12.2021 IN OP
1130/2017 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
RAGINA P.V.
AGED 29 YEARS
D/O GOPALAN, RESIDING AT PADINJARE VEED,
MANDOOR P.O., KANNUR-670501
BY ADV K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
T. MANIKANDAN
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O VIJAYAN, RESIDING AT THAZHATH EDAVAN HOUSE,
P.O. ANCHAMPEEDIKA, MOTTAMMEL, KANNUR - 670331
THIS MAT.APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON
31/10/2023, ALONG WITH R.P.(FC) NO.120 OF 2022 & R.P.(FC)
NO.174 OF 2023, THE COURT ON 06.11.2023 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
4
R.P.(FC)Nos.120 of 2022, 174 of 2023 and
Mat.Appeal No.314 of 2023
AMIT RAWAL & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------
R.P.(FC)Nos.120 of 2022, 174 of 2023 and
Mat.Appeal No.314 of 2023
-----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of November, 2023
JUDGMENT
C.S.Sudha, J.
The aforesaid RP(FC)s and Mat.Appeal have been filed
against the common judgment dated 30/12/2021 of the Family Court,
Kannur, in O.P.No.1130/2017 and M.C.No.317/2017. Mat.Appeal
No.314/2023 has been filed by the respondent/wife in O.P.No.1130/2017,
aggrieved by the grant of a decree of restitution of conjugal rights in favour
of the petitioner/husband. In M.C.No.317/2017 filed by the petitioner/wife,
maintenance @ ₹8,000/- has been granted to the minor child of the couple.
Aggrieved, both the petitioner as well as the respondent in the MC have
preferred the above-mentioned petitions. The parties in this proceeding will
be referred to as described in M.C.No.317/2017.
2. O.P.No.1130/2017 was filed by the petitioner/husband seeking
restitution of conjugal rights. The same has been allowed, against which
Mat.Appeal No.314/2023 has been preferred. The parties were referred for
R.P.(FC)Nos.120 of 2022, 174 of 2023 and
Mat.Appeal No.314 of 2023
mediation. In the mediation, the matter was settled between the parties and
it was agreed that both the parties would move a joint petition for divorce
under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Accordingly, we are
told that a joint petition was filed before the family court concerned and a
decree of divorce has been obtained. Mat.Appeal No.314/2023 has become
infructuous and so the same is dismissed as infructuous.
3. In M.C.No.317/2017 filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the
petitioners are the wife and minor child of the respondent. According to the
petitioners, the respondent is a skilled worker earning a monthly income of
₹50,000/-. The respondent deserted the first petitioner and her minor child
since 15/01/2017. Hence, maintenance @ ₹6,000/- to the first petitioner and
maintenance @ ₹18,000/- to the second petitioner was sought.
4. The respondent/husband denied the liability and contended that
the petitioner/wife is having sufficient means and she is keeping away from
his company without any reasonable cause, and therefore she is not entitled
to any maintenance.
5. On completion of pleadings, the parties went to trial.
O.P.No.1130/2017 was taken as the main case in which evidence was
recorded. The respondent in M.C.No.317/2017, the petitioner/husband in
R.P.(FC)Nos.120 of 2022, 174 of 2023 and
Mat.Appeal No.314 of 2023
O.P.No.1130/2017 was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A20 series were
marked on his side. The 1st petitioner/wife in M.C.No.317/2017, the
respondent/wife in O.P.No.1130/2017 was examined as RW1 and her
witness as RW2. Exts.B1 to B16 series were marked. On a consideration
of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the
family court by the impugned judgment allowed maintenance @₹8,000/-
per month to the second petitioner. The claim of the first petitioner for
maintenance has been declined. Aggrieved, both the parties in
M.C.No.317/2017 have challenged the order in the above RPFCs.
6. The only point that arises for consideration is whether there is
any infirmity in the findings of the family court calling for an interference
by this Court.
7. Heard both sides
8. According to the first petitioner/wife, the amount of ₹8,000/-
per month awarded to the second petitioner as maintenance is quite paltry
as the second petitioner, a minor child, is physically challenged and hence
quite a substantial sum is required for the treatment of the child. To
substantiate her case, RW2, a physiotherapist, was examined and Exts.B2 to
B16 series medical records were produced. RW2 deposed that he has been
R.P.(FC)Nos.120 of 2022, 174 of 2023 and
Mat.Appeal No.314 of 2023
providing physiotherapy treatment to the minor child for the past two years
and that the treatment is to continue for a period of 4 to 5 years. Ext.B1
certificate issued by a consultant neurologist shows that the child has
cerebral palsy and he needs regular physiotherapy treatment. Exts.B2 to
B13 series are the medical records pertaining to the minor child. The trial
court referring to these documents, held that the same clearly would
indicate that the minor child requires constant medication and
physiotherapy. RW2 also deposed that his fees is ₹270/- per sitting. The
medical records brought on record indicated that the child required at least
₹2,000/- per month for physiotherapy treatment. Therefore taking into
account the physical condition of the child, the trial court opined that
considerable amount would be required for the treatment of the child and
therefore while fixing the quantum of maintenance, the said factor also
needs to be taken into consideration. The respondent being the father, was
held to have a duty to maintain his minor child. Though the
respondent/husband took up a plea that he is suffering from physical
ailments, the trial court from the materials on record found that the only
ailment that the respondent had was back pain. The respondent/ husband
being a healthy man, was therefore held liable to maintain his minor child.
R.P.(FC)Nos.120 of 2022, 174 of 2023 and
Mat.Appeal No.314 of 2023
The trial court granted maintenance @ ₹8,000/- per month though the claim
was for ₹18,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the
respondent/husband seriously challenges the amount of ₹8,000/- awarded
per month to the second petitioner. According to her, the
respondent/husband is only a tile worker; that he has a housing loan and
hence the amount awarded is to be reduced. Per contra, the counsel for the
petitioner/wife submitted that the fact that the child is physically challenged
and require substantial sum for treatment, is not disputed. That being the
position, the amount awarded is too low and hence needs to be enhanced.
9. Admittedly, the respondent is a tile worker and therefore the
amount granted by the trial court as maintenance for the second petitioner
appears quite reasonable. There has been a proper appreciation of the oral
and documentary evidence produced by both sides. As far as the rejection
of maintenance for the first petitioner/wife is concerned, the same is not
challenged now in the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties
in Mat.Appeal No.314/2023 as per which the petitioner/wife has given up
her claim for maintenance. On going through the impugned judgment, we
do not find any infirmity in the findings of the family court calling for an
interference by this Court.
R.P.(FC)Nos.120 of 2022, 174 of 2023 and
Mat.Appeal No.314 of 2023
In the result, Mat.Appeal No.314/2023, RPFC No.120//2022 and
RPFC No.174/2023 are dismissed.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
ami/
