Kerala High Court
Premalatha vs Karunakaran on 18 June, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2025:KER:43813
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 619 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2013 IN OP NO.1708 OF 2011
OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
PREMALATHA, AGED 46 YEARS, D/O.BHAVANI,
THADATHARIKATH VEEDU, ARASUPARAMBU,
NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
KARUNAKARAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN NADAR,
PULACHAYIL VEEDU, MANCHA, NEDUMANGAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 541.
BY ADVS
SRI.M.G.SREEJITH
SRI ROHIT R
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:43813
Mat Appeal 619/15
2
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Family
Court, Nedumangad, in O.P.No.1708/2011, because it has granted her
maintenance from the respondent only to a monthly sum of Rs.1,500/-,
though she had claimed Rs.3,000/- per month.
2. Sri.Rohith R. - learned counsel for the appellant, pointed
out that, even after the learned Family Court found that the respondent
has the capacity to pay Rs.3,000/- or more per month as maintenance
and that he is a man with ample means, as also health, it reduced the
maintenance to Rs.1,500/- solely because his client has two major
children, one of them being employed. He argued that this holding of
the learned Trial Court is untenable because, his client is entitled to
maintenance from her former husband, notwithstanding whether her
children have the capacity to earn or otherwise.
3. We see from the endorsements on file that the service of
summons to the respondent is complete. However, he is neither present
in person, nor is he represented through counsel.
2025:KER:43813
4. This is a matter pending for more than 10 years before this
Court. We are, therefore, forced to hear this matter in the absence of
the respondent, particularly when he has not even made an
arrangement for his representation for the last more than a decade.
5. We record that, though this Court has not called for the
Trial Court Records, the learned counsel for the appellant has made
available the copies of all documents and testimonies on record.
6. We have examined the impugned judgment, and as rightly
argued by Sri.R.Rohit, the learned Family Court has firmly concluded,
based on the available evidence - namely the testimony of PW1, who
is the appellant herein; and that of DW1, the respondent herein, as also
B1 to B4 documents, which were marked on behalf of the respondent -
that the latter is an able bodied person, without any disease or such
other incapacitating him from honouring the maintenance; and hence,
that he is liable to pay the amount claimed for.
7. Interestingly, the learned Family Court found from the
documents produced by the respondent himself that, though they were
purported to be receipts intended to show that he had borrowed money
2025:KER:43813
from other people, thus to establish his impecuniousness, they were
actually written by himself and its photographs taken and produced
only for the purpose of litigation. It has further found that though
Ext.B4 was produced by the respondent to establish that he is not
keeping well, it obtains no probative value since it was only a
photocopy, and since it only states that he was suffering from only
cough and hoarseness of voice for four days.
8. We have little doubt that the learned Family Court has
concluded correctly about the means of the respondent to honour the
maintenance; and therefore, the surviving question is whether the
amount granted by it is appropriate.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant is right in contending
that the sole reason why the learned Family Court has reduced the
amount claimed by his clients to Rs.1,500/- is because she has two
sons, one of whom was employed. Surely, one fails to understand what
the learned Family Court has meant by this because, it is the right of
the wife to obtain maintenance from her estranged/divorced husband
and this would not be dependent upon the assistance that she may be
2025:KER:43813
obtaining from other sources - even assuming she is enjoying any such.
Therefore, even if it is to be assumed - but without any evidence to
such being on record - that the children are taking care of their
mother, it would not deny the appellant the right to claim eligible
maintenance from her estranged/divorced husband; and to that extent,
we cannot find favour with the findings of the learned Family Court.
10. That said, since this Appeal has been pending for more than
a decade, we are of the view that it will not be justified for us to
impose the amount claimed by the appellant on the respondent from
the date of the decree. We are of the firm opinion that it will be
legally prudent for this Court to order the claimed amount from the
date on which this Appeal was presented.
In the afore circumstances, we allow this Appeal and modify the
impugned judgment, thus enhancing the amount of maintenance ordered
in favour of the appellant, from the respondent, to be a sum of
Rs.3,000/-, which shall be liable to be paid by him from 12.12.2014.
If the entire arrears so calculated is to be honoured by the
respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
2025:KER:43813
a copy of this judgment, it shall not carry interest; but, if on the
contrary, he refuses or fails such payment, it shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from 12.12.2014, until it is actually paid.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
RR
