Kerala High Court
Praveen P.P vs Aiswarya Praveen on 4 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 13TH BHADRA, 1945
RPFC NO. 132 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT MC 395/2018 OF FAMILY
COURT,ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S:
PRAVEEN P.P, AGED 52 YEARS
S/O K. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, KAKKATTIL HOUSE,
VALANCHERY, VALIYAKUNNU P.O., TIRUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676552
BY ADVS.
SANTHEEP ANKARATH
J.RAMKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 AISWARYA PRAVEEN, AGED 17 YEARS
FLAT NO. 501, CRYSTAL RUBY APARTMENTS, ASOKA
ROAD. KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI REPRESENTED BY HER
MOTHER SINDHU.P, AGED 48 YEARS, D/O P.N.
GOPINATHAN, FLAT NO. 501, CRYSTAL RUBY
APARTMENTS, ASOKA ROAD. KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,
PIN - 682017
2 SINDHU P, AGED 48 YEARS
D/O P.N. GOPINATHAN, FLAT NO. 501, CRYSTAL RUBY
APARTMENTS, ASOKA ROAD. KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,
PIN - 682017
BY ADVS.
Vinod Bhat S
ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN(K/000767/2015)
GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R(K/807/2020)
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
R.P.(FC) No. 132 of 2023
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
======================================================
R.P.(FC) No. 132 of 2023
=============================================================
Dated this the 4th day of September, 2023
ORDER
This revision is filed by the respondent in MC No.395 of 2018
on the file of the Family Court, Ernakulam. It is a case filed by the
respondent herein under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
2. The marriage between the petitioner and the 2 nd
respondent was admittedly dissolved. The 1 st respondent born in
their legal wedlock on 28.05.2005. It is the case of the respondents
that the petitioner abandoned the respondents since 16.04.2015.
Thereafter, the 1st respondent was looked after solely by the 2 nd
respondent mother. As on the date of institution of the petition, the 1 st
respondent minor girl was studying in the 8 th Standard in Bhavans
Vidya Mandhir, Elamakkara. The petitioner is working as a
Supervisor in Maersk Oil, Doha Quatar, a multi national company
since 2009 is the submission of the respondents. It is the case of the
respondents that the petitioner draws a monthly income of Rs.5 lakh.
The minor child requires Rs.25,000/- per month towards her needs and
R.P.(FC) No. 132 of 2023
requirements including educational expenses. Hence, the case was
filed claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month to the
minor child.
3. MC No.395 of 2018 and OP No.2535 of 2018 were
considered together by the Family Court and a common judgment
were delivered. To substantiate the case, revision petitioner was
examined as RW1 and the 2nd respondent was examined as PW1.
Exts.A1 to A12 are the exhibits marked on the side of the respondents
and Exts.B1 to B4 are the exhibits marked on the side of the revision
petitioner. After going through the evidence and documents, the
Family Court allowed MC No.395 of 2018 directing the respondent to
pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of petition to the 1 st
respondent with 6% interest. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is
filed.
4. Heard counsel for the revision petitioner and the counsel
appearing for the respondents.
R.P.(FC) No. 132 of 2023
5. When this revision petition came up for consideration on
05.04.2023, this Court passed the following order:
"Learned counsel for the respondents points out that huge
amount is in arrears towards maintenance allowance. It is
also pointed out that the child is in 12 th standard and is in
dire need of money for education and other expenses.
In such circumstances, there shall be an interim stay of
further proceedings based on M.C.No.395/2018 of the
Family Court, Ernakulam for two months, subject to the
petitioner depositing Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs
only) within one month.
If the amount is deposited, the same shall forthwith be
released to the respondents. If the amount is not deposited
within one month, the Family Court can continue with the
coercive proceedings. Post on reopening week."
6. Thereafter, when the matter came up for consideration on
05.06.2023, this Court passed the following order:
"Learned Counsel for the respondents points out that,
depsite this Court's direction that the petitioner should pay
Rs.4,00,000/- towards arrears of maintenance, payment was
made through the account of a stranger. It is also submitted
that on the earlier occasion also, the remittance was made
through the account of a stranger and the respondent had
raised an objection before the bank.
R.P.(FC) No. 132 of 2023
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to justify the
action by pointing out that the payment was effected from
the account of petitioner's mother-in-law, since the
petitioner is abroad. According to the Counsel, no objection
was raised by the respondent when remittance were made
through that account earlier.
I find substance in the objection raised by the respondents,
since this Court had specifically directed the petitioner to
make the payment. The petitioner having flauted the
direction by remitting Rs.6,00,000/- through a stranger's
account, extension of the interim order is made subject to
the petitioner himself remitting/paying a further amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) within one month.
The interim order is extended by two months, subject to the
above condition."
7. Thereafter, the revision petitioner submitted that he wants
to see the 1st respondent child, for which the 2nd respondent also was
agreeable. Hence, the case was listed today for the appearance of the
parties. This Court allowed the revision petitioner to interact with the
1st respondent, who is now major. Thereafter the matter was heard in
detail.
8. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the
quantum of maintenance awarded to the child is excessive. It is also
R.P.(FC) No. 132 of 2023
submitted that the Family Court erred in ordering interest to the
maintenance which is not permissible under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The
counsel for the respondents submitted that the minor child is now
major and huge amount is pending as arrears and the same is not paid
by the revision petitioner.
9. This Court considered the contentions of the revision
petitioner and the respondents. The liability to pay maintenance is not
disputed by the revision petitioner. A perusal of the evidence of RW1
would show that he is a man of sufficient means. In such
circumstances, an amount of Rs.20,000/- fixed by the trial court as
maintenance cannot be treated as excessive considering the present
day circumstances of a child, who is pursuing her studies. Therefore, I
am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the
quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial court. But the payment
of interest for the maintenance ordered under Section 125 Cr.P.C may
not be sustainable. Therefore, that part of the order, by which the
interest is awarded for the maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C can
be set aside. The revision petitioner submitted that some time may be
R.P.(FC) No. 132 of 2023
granted to pay the arrears of maintenance because there is huge
amount to be paid and coercive steps are taken by the Family Court
for recovering the amount. I think the revision petitioner can be given
six monthly installments to clear the arrear amount due.
Therefore, this revision petition is disposed of in the following
manner:
1. The maintenance order of Rs.20,000/- awarded to the 1 st
respondent by the Family Court is confirmed.
2. The interest at the rate of 6% per annum awarded for the
maintenance ordered in MC No.395 of 2018 is set aside.
3. The revision petitioner is allowed to pay the entire arrears
of maintenance in six monthly installments commencing
from 03.10.2023. If there is any default in paying the
amount as directed above, the Family Court can proceed
with the execution petition, in accordance with law.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
das
