Kerala High Court
Tina Chhabani vs Neeraj Surendra Shah on 3 October, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 11TH ASWINA, 1946
OP (FC) NO. 539 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2024 IN MP NO.462 OF 2023 OF
FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER IN MC NO.182 OF
2021 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:
1 TINA CHHABANI, AGED 42 YEARS
D/O HARISH P.CHHABANI, APARTMENT 5C, YASORAM
INDRADHANUSH APARTMENT, T.D ROAD, ERNAKULAM,
COCHIN, PIN - 682035
2 ASHNA, AGED 9 YEARS
D/O NEERAJ SURENDRA SHAH,MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER
MOTHER TINA CHHABANI, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O HARISH
P.CHHABANI, APARTMENT NO.5 C, YASORAM INDRADHANUSH
APARTMENT, T.D ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, PIN - 682035
3 JIANA, AGED 8 YEARS
D/O NEERAJ SURENDRA SHAH, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER
MOTHER TINA CHHABANI, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O HARISH
P.CHHABANI, APARTMENT NO.5 C, YASORAM INDRADHANUSH
APARTMENT, T.D ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN., PIN - 682035
RAJIT
RAJITHA NAIR M.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
NEERAJ SURENDRA SHAH
S/O SURENDRA SHAH, APARTMENT NO.7E MAYFLOWER WESTMOUNT
APARTMENTS, NEAR GCT , THADAGAM ROAD, COIMBATORE,
TAMILNADU, PIN - 641013
2024:KER:73257
OP (FC) NO. 539 OF 2024
2
V.K.BALACHANDRAN
AMRUTHA P.S.(K/1817/2020)
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:73257
OP (FC) NO. 539 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The controversy in this case is as to the liability of the
respondent - father to pay an amount of Rs.2,23,000/-, which the
petitioner - mother of two children - is alleged to have spent for
their admission and educational expenses in a School in
Ernakulam.
2. Shorn of all unnecessary details, the parties were
originally in Coimbatore; and due to the matrimonial disputes,
the petitioner - mother relocated herself to Ernakulam and got
the children admitted to a School there.
3. The afore is objected to by the father solely saying
that he was not kept informed; and he, therefore, denies his
liability to pay any amount as prayed. He also has a case that he
does not have the financial capacity to honour a figure as large
as Rs.2,23,000/-; though asserting that he was taking care of the
children's entire educational expenses while in Coimbatore,
which is a sum of Rs.70,000/- per year.
4. We notice that the learned Family Court issued the
impugned order, namely Ext.P8, holding that the petitioner -
2024:KER:73257
OP (FC) NO. 539 OF 2024
mother was in error in not having sought the permission of the
respondent - father before having obtained admission for the
children in a School in Kochi. On such ratiocination, the
application filed by her, namely M.P.No.462/2023, in
M.C.No.182/2021 - earlier instituted under her instance, was
rejected.
5. The petitioners are before us assailing Ext.P8,
arguing that the respondent - father of the children, is very
wealthy and capable of taking care of all expenses; but that he
is refusing to do so solely because the respondent - wife had
relocated herself to Kochi, which he did not want. They
concluded saying that the intention of the respondent is only to
make petitioners suffer for having taken the decision to come to
Kerala and hence that Ext.P8 stands without forensic support.
6. However, in response to the afore submission of
Smt.Rajitha Nair M. - learned counsel for the petitioners,
Sri.V.K.Balachandran - learned counsel for the respondent, made
a very fair submission that he does not personally subscribe to
the findings of the learned Family Court that, the wife is not
entitled to any contribution from his client for the amount
claimed merely because she had relocated herself to Kerala, or
2024:KER:73257
OP (FC) NO. 539 OF 2024
since she had taken admission for her children in a school
without his permission. He added that, what was far more
relevant was that his client has no financial capacity to pay such
huge amounts; and explained that, it is perhaps, therefore, that
a contention was raised before the learned Family Court that,
had he been told about the relocation and the subsequent
admission to the school, he would have also suggested a school
which could be affordable to him and not one in which the fee
structure and donation are too high. He then pointed out that a
counter affidavit has been filed on record in this case, wherein,
Exts.R1(c), (d) and (e) have been filed - which are the Income
Tax returns of his client for various assessment years - which
would indubitably establish that he is unable to honour the huge
claim made against him. However, as a parting argument, the
learned counsel submitted that, solely as a matter of fairness
and recognising his responsibilities as a father, his client is
willing to pay one-half of the amount now claimed but only as a
one time measure. He prayed that if this is acceded to by this
Court, then, any further claim by the mother be left open to be
decided by the learned Family Court at the appropriate times.
7. Smt.Rajitha Nair - appearing for the petitioners,
2024:KER:73257
OP (FC) NO. 539 OF 2024
submitted that the respondent - wife will accept the afore
suggestion, not because she is giving up their claims but solely
to find peace, so that the children can study without any
disturbance. She also, however, sought liberty for her clients to
move the learned Family Court, if any further claims are found
necessary to be made.
8. It is thus obvious that, within the limited consent now
offered by the parties, it would not be necessary for this Court to
consider the validity of Ext.P8. We, however, must record that
the reasons stated in Ext.P8 cannot be subscribed to by us; and
that if any further claim is to be made by the wife in future, the
learned Court must consider the same without being fettered or
trammeled by any observation therein.
9. In the afore circumstances, with the consent of both
sides, we dispose of this Original Petition with the following
directions:
(a) The impugned Ext.P8 order will stand set aside;
however, clarifying that it is not because we have entered any
finding on its merits conclusively, but on account of the consent
between the parties.
(b) Consequently, we allow MP No.476/2021 in part,
2024:KER:73257
OP (FC) NO. 539 OF 2024
recording that the respondent will pay an amount of
Rs.1,12,000/- to the petitioners, by handing a Demand Draft/Pay
Order for the same to their learned counsel before this Court -
Smt.Rajitha Nair. This shall be done not later than one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which is to
say not later than 05.11.2024.
(c) We reiteratingly clarify that our observations in this
judgment will not fetter the right of either of the parties to move
the learned Family Court appropriately in future; and that any
such will be considered by the said Court as per law and subject
to the materials and evidence on record.
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
M.B. SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
akv/stu
2024:KER:73257
OP (FC) NO. 539 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 539/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,
ERNAKULAM AS M.C 182/2021 DATED 05.07.2021
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.P 476/2021
IN MC 182/2021 OF THE FAMILY COURT
ERNAKULAM, DATED 31.08.2022
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
IN M.C 182/2021 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
ERNAKULAM DATED 08.10.2022
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2024
IN RP(FC).NO 100/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P5 THE FEE RECEIPTS OF THE CHILDREN ISSUED BY
THE CHINMAYA VIDYALAYA SCHOOL
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN MP 462/2023 IN MC 182/2021 OF
THE FAMILY COURT
Exhibit P7 THE DONATION RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE
CHINMAYA VIDYALAYA SCHOOL FOR REMITTING THE
DONATION FEE OF THE CHILDREN
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19-04-2023
IN MP 462/2023 IN MC 182/2021 OF THE FAMILY
COURT, ERNAKULAM
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN MC 182/2021
DATED 23.03.2023 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY
COURT, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit R1(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT POSTED BY
THE PETITIONER IN HER FACEBOOK
2024:KER:73257
OP (FC) NO. 539 OF 2024
Exhibit R1(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX TURN
ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR
2023-24 IN THE NAME OF RESPONDENT (PAN
ACOPN2789D)
Exhibit R1(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX TURN
ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR
2022-23 IN THE NAME OF RESPONDENT (PAN
ACOPN2789D)
Exhibit R1(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX TURN
ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR
2021-22 IN THE NAME OF RESPONDENT (PAN
ACOPN2789D)
Exhibit R1(f) A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT TAKEN FROM
THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE CHINMAYA
VIDYALAYA VADUTHALA.
