Kerala High Court
Manikandan K .P vs Krishna Prabha on 9 June, 2025
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
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 622 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2019 IN OP NO.593 OF 2015 OF
FAMILY COURT, TIRUR
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
MANIKANDAN K .P.
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.SREENARAYANAN, "PRANAVALAYAM", MANGATTUR, KALADI
(VILLAGE), PERUMPARAMBU P.O., PONNANI TALUK, EDAPPAL,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 576.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.VENUGOPAL
SMT.SEBI S. RAJ
SMT.REMITHA V.R.
SMT.SRILAKSHMI T.S.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 KRISHNA PRABHA
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O.GANGADHARAN MASTER, "THRIPTHI", THAVANUR P.O.,
THAVANUR VILLAGE, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679 573.
2 THANUSREE
AGED 14 YEARS (MINOR),
REPRESENTED BY MOTHER, KRISHNA PRABHA, "THRIPTHI",
THAVANUR P.O., THAVANUR VILLAGE, PONNANI TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 573.
BY ADV SRI.A.KRISHNAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.05.2025, THE COURT ON 09.06.2025, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.A No.622 of 2022
2
2025:KER:40306
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & M.B.SNEHALATHA, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
Mat.Appeal No.622 of 2022
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th June, 2025
JUDGMENT
M.B.Snehalatha, J
In this appeal, the appellant calls into question the judgment and
decree of the Family Court, Tirur in O.P. No.593/2015 by which it
directed him to pay past maintenance to his wife and child.
2. The wife filed the Original Petition stating that
respondent/husband ill-treated her physically and mentally; that she
was driven out of the matrimonial home on 12.4.2009 and thereafter
she along with the child are residing at her parental house. Earlier,
she had filed M.C.No.849/2009 before the Family Court, Malappuram
and during the pendency of the said M.C, there was mediation between
the parties and the parties agreed to live together. Accordingly, the
said M.C was closed. But the respondent did not comply with the
terms of the settlement and therefore, the marriage could not be
resumed. Petitioner and her child is residing at her parental house
and she is depending on her parents for their sustenance.
Respondent is earning Rs.1,25,000/- per month. Though he has
sufficient means and income to provide maintenance to the petitioner
and her child, respondent is not providing any maintenance to the
petitioners from 12.4.2009 onwards. The 1 st petitioner claimed past
2025:KER:40306
maintenance at the rate of ₹12,000/- per month from 20.10.2012 to
20.6.2015 and claimed past maintenance at the rate of ₹8,000/- per
month for the 2nd petitioner from 12.4.2009 to 12.6.2015.
3. Respondent filed counter contending that though he tried
to resume the marriage, it was not materialized due to the non-
cooperation of the 1st petitioner and therefore she is not entitled to get
maintenance, since the petitioner live separately without any
reasonable cause, respondent is not liable to pay any maintenance to
her. The allegation that he is earning ₹1,25,000/- per month is to be
proved by the petitioner. Petitioner is not entitled to get past
maintenance as claimed in the petition.
4. By the impugned judgment, the learned Family Court
directed the respondent to pay past maintenance at the rate of
₹4,000/- per month from 20.10.2012 to 20.6.2015 to the 1 st
petitioner and to pay past maintenance at the rate of ₹2,000/- per
month to the 2nd petitioner from 12.4.2009 to 12.6.2015.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, respondent in
the Original Petition has preferred this appeal contending that the
learned Family Court has not analysed the evidence in it's correct
perspective; that the Family Court has not taken into account the fact
that the 1st petitioner/wife refused to live with the respondent without
any sufficient reason and even after entering into compromise, she
refused to live with the respondent; that 1 st petitioner is highly
2025:KER:40306
qualified and she has job and therefore she is not entitled to get any
maintenance. It was further contended that in the absence of any
documentary evidence to prove the income of the respondent, the
Family Court went wrong in fixing the quantum of maintenance.
6. Per contra, The learned counsel for the petitioners in the O.P.,
supported the judgment of the learned Family Court and submitted
that the respondent in the O.P who has sufficient means and income
failed to maintain the 1st petitioner/wife and minor child and therefore
there are no reasons at all to interfere with the impugned judgment
and decree.
7. The short question for consideration is whether the judgment
of the Family Court warrants any interference by this Court.
8. Admittedly, the 1st petitioner is the wife of the respondent
and the 2nd petitioner is their minor child. The specific case of the 1 st
petitioner is that the respondent subjected her to cruelty and threw out
her from the matrimonial home and thereafter, he is not looking after
the her affairs and the affairs of their child. It is her case that
respondent who is working as a System Analyst, has sufficient means
and income; that he earns a sum of ₹1,25,000/- per month. According
to her though the respondent has sufficient means and income he
neglected to maintain her and the child.
9. According to the respondent who was examined as RW1,
the petitioner left the matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason
2025:KER:40306
and she was not willing to reside with him and therefore she is not
entitled to get any maintenance. His yet another contention is that
petitioner is an educated lady and therefore she is not entitled to get
maintenance, as claimed by her. It is also contended by him that
though pursuant to a mediation, the couple agreed to live together,
due to the non-cooperation of the 1 st petitioner, the settlement could
not be materialized and in the said circumstances, 1 st petitioner is not
entitled to get any past maintenance as claimed.
10. The evidence on record would show that due to the marital
discord between the 1st petitioner and the respondent, they were
residing separately from 2009 onwards. It is in evidence that during
the pendency of earlier M.C.No.849/2009 filed by the petitioner, there
were mediation talks and pursuant to the mediation, though the
spouses agreed to live together, it did not materialise. Petitioners have
claimed past maintenance from 20.10.2012 to 20.6.2015. For the 2 nd
petitioner/child past maintenance is claimed from 12.4.2009 to
12.6.2015. Respondent has no case that he has provided any
maintenance to the petitioners for the said period. The specific case
of the petitioner is that though respondent has sufficient means and
income, he neglected the petitioners and failed to provide any
maintenance to them. While examined as PW1, petitioner has
narrated the mental and physical torture she had meted out from the
respondent. Thus she has had sufficient reason to reside separately.
2025:KER:40306
Therefore, the contention of the respondent that in spite of mediation,
1st petitioner failed to resume the marriage and therefore he is not
liable to pay maintenance etc, are untenable.
11. In Amrita Singh v. Ratan Singh and Anr. (2018) 17 SCC
737), this Court held, on facts, that the plea of the husband that his
wife had deserted him without reasonable cause and that he was ready
to take her back was falsified by the fact that the wife was treated with
cruelty and subjected to persistent demands for dowry, resulting in her
being ousted from the matrimonial house, whereupon she was
compelled to file a criminal complaint Under Section 498A Indian Penal
Code ending in the conviction of the husband and his father. The wife
was held to have reasonable grounds not to join the husband, thereby
entitling her to maintenance.
12. The respondent/husband cannot wriggle out of his liability to
pay maintenance to his wife and child by merely contending that he
lost his job. The learned Family Court has granted past maintenance to
the 1st petitioner at the rate of ₹4,000/- per month and ₹2,000/- per
month to the child, which is the least any court could have granted.
13. In Rajnesh v.Neha and another [2020 (6) KHC 1] the apex
court held that a man who has no physical ailments or incapability to
earn, cannot impel a contention that he does not have enough income
to take care of his family.
14. The evidence on record would show that the respondent-
2025:KER:40306
husband neglected/refused to give maintenance to the petitioner and
the child. It is also evident that the respondent and her child are
unable to maintain themselves and she is depending on her parents for
their sustenance.
15. The learned Family Court has awarded ₹4,000- per month to
the 1st petitioner and ₹2,000/- per month to the 2 nd petitioner towards
past maintenance. The quantum of past maintenance fixed by the
Family Court do not need any interference.
The Mat.Appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed with
costs.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
ab
