Kerala High Court
V.P.Unnikannan vs Nivedya Unni on 27 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1945
RPFC NO. 292 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.01.2023 IN MC 84/2020 OF FAMILY
COURT, KANNUR
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
V.P.UNNIKANNAN,
AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O KARIPPATH BALAKRISHNAN,
ATHIRA, KANDOTH.P.O,
VELLUR AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670307
BY ADV T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
NIVEDYA UNNI,
AGED 12 YEARS,
D/O SRUTHI K.P, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND
GUARDIAN,
SRUTHI K.P,
AGED 35 YEARS,
D/O K.V.RAJENDRAN,
NIVEDYAM, NEAR ALUMINIYUM COMPANY,
KANDOTH P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670307
BY ADVS. M.ANUROOP
MURSHID ALI M.(K/000470/2017)
THIS REV. PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
R.P.(FC)No.292/2023
-:2:-
Dated this the 27th day of October,2023
ORDER
The revision petition is filed challenging the order
in M.C.No.84/2020 of the Family Court, Kannur,
directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance
allowance to the respondent - his daughter - at the
rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. The revision petitioner
was the respondent and the respondent was the
petitioner before the Family Court.
Brief facts:
2. The revision petitioner is the father of the
respondent. His marriage with the respondent's
mother was dissolved by a decree of divorce. The
revision petitioner's divorced wife had filed
M.C.No.44/2014 before the Court of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Kannur, under the provisions of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005, seeking various reliefs, including an order of
R.P.(FC)No.292/2023
maintenance for the respondent. The matrimonial
disputes between the parties were settled in a
mediation proceedings as per a mediation agreement
dated 06.04.2017, whereby the revision petitioner paid
the respondent's mother Rs.4,00,000/- and agreed to
pay Rs.2,000/- per month towards maintenance of the
respondent. There was another condition in the
agreement that the quantum of maintenance ordered
in M.C.No.308/2016 would be modified and made in
tune with the mediation agreement. But, the
respondent's mother failed to comply with the said
condition. Hence, the revision petitioner filed
M.C.No.297/2021 to cancel the order in M.C.
No.308/2016. Immediately, the respondent's mother
filed M.C.No.84/2000 for enhancement of the
maintenance allowance. The Family Court consolidated
the two petitions and jointly tried the cases, and by the
impugned order, allowed M.C.No.84/2020 and
R.P.(FC)No.292/2023
dismissed M.C.No.297/2021. The impugned order is
illegal, irregular and unjust.
3. Heard; Sri.T.V.Jayakumar Namboodiri, the
learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner
and Sri.M.Anuroop, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent.
4. Is there any illegality, impropriety or
irregularity in the impugned order?
5. The revision petitioner does not dispute the
paternity of the respondent. Admittedly, the marital
relationship between the revision petitioner and his
former wife was estranged. The respondent's mother
had filed M.C.No.308/2016, claiming maintenance for
her and the respondent from the revision petitioner.
6. The above petition was allowed by the Family
Court, on 06.01.2017, directing the revision petitioner
to pay the respondent monthly maintenance allowance
@ Rs.3,000/-. Subsequently, the estranged couple
R.P.(FC)No.292/2023
entered into a mediation agreement and their marriage
was dissolved on mutual consent as per the decree of
divorce dated 16.10.2017 passed by the above Court.
7. Indisputably, as per the mediation agreement,
the revision petitioner had paid a consolidated amount
of Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondent' mother and agreed
to pay the respondent maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per
month, in supersession of the earlier order passed by
the Family Court in M.C. No.308/2016.
8. The mediation agreement was entered into by
the divorced parents of the respondent in the year
2017. Subsequently, in the year 2020, the respondent
filed M.C.No.84/2020, for the enhancement of the
maintenance allowance. Immediately, the revision
petitioner filed M.C.No.297/2021, to cancel the order
in M.C.No.308/2016, on the ground that he had made a
consolidated payment.
9. It is not disputed that, as per the mediation
R.P.(FC)No.292/2023
agreement which led to the dissolution of the marriage
between the revision petitioner and his former wife, he
had agreed to pay maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per
month to the respondent.
10. Section 127 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 ('Code' for short), permits alteration of
the maintenance allowance on proof of change of
circumstances.
11. The respondent had filed M.C.No.84/2020 on
the assertion that she was pursuing her studies in the
VIIth standard and she requires Rs.10,000/- per month
for her educational, medical and other expenses. Her
mother does not have the means to maintain her, but
her father - the revision petitioner - is running a
driving school and is earning Rs.5,000/- per day.
12. The revision petitioner resisted the petition
on the ground that he had already paid Rs.4,00,000/- to
the respondent and her mother and was regularly
R.P.(FC)No.292/2023
paying Rs.2,000/- per month as per the mediation
agreement. Therefore, he is not liable to pay any
further amount.
13. The Family Court concluded that the revision
petitioner has the means to pay Rs.5,000/- per month
to the respondent, as maintenance allowance and the
respondent is entitled to the said amount in view of the
change of circumstances and the change of
circumstances projected by the revision petitioner was
untenable in law.
14. On a re-consideration of the pleadings and
materials on record, particularly the fact that the
respondent has filed the instant petition after three
years from the date of execution of the mediation
agreement between her parents, I am of the definite
view that there was a change of circumstances which
enabled the respondent to seek for enhancement of
maintenance. I do not find any illegality, impropriety
R.P.(FC)No.292/2023
or irregularity in the impugned order warranting
interference by this Court by exercising its revisional
powers.
The revision petition is devoid of any merits and is
consequentially, dismissed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS,JUDGE
DST/27.10.23 //True copy//
P.A. To Judge
