Ratnakaran vs Aswathy R.S
2025 Latest Caselaw 10472 Ker

Kerala High Court

Ratnakaran vs Aswathy R.S on 4 November, 2025

Author: Sathish Ninan

Bench: Sathish Ninan

                                              2025:KER:83681
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

                             &

         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1947

                 MAT.APPEAL NO. 671 OF 2015

 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.01.2015 IN OP NO.409 OF 2013

                OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

         RATNAKARAN
         AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.SANKARAN KANI, KMP HOUSE,
         S.N.PURAM, PANAVOOR, NEDUMANGAD,
         NOW WORKING AS POST MASTER, NEYYATTINKARA (PO),
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

         BY ADVS.
         SRI.G.P.SHINOD
         SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR
         SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN
         SRI.MANU V.
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

         ASWATHY R.S
         D/O.S.RATNAKARAN, ROHINI, KODIPPURAM JUNCTION,
         KOLLAMKAVU, PAZHAKUTTY, KARIPPOORU VILLAGE,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

         BY ADV SRI.R.V.SREEJITH

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING      COME   UP FOR HEARING ON
04.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE        SAME   DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                     2025:KER:83681

              SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                     Mat.Appeal No.671 of 2015
                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
             Dated this the 4th day of November, 2025

                              JUDGMENT

Sathish Ninan, J.

The original petition filed by the daughter against the

father, seeking marriage expenses and for past maintenance,

was decreed by the Family Court. The father is in appeal.

2. The petitioner was born on 03.03.1990, in the

wedlock between the respondent and one Sobhana Kumari. The

marriage was dissolved as per the judgment in O.P.No.384 of

2008. The mother of the petitioner was looking after her.

The petitioner completed B.Tech. The original petition was

filed claiming Rs.35,00,000/- towards marriage expenses and

Rs.5,000/- per month towards past maintenance.

3. The Family Court granted a decree for

Rs.16,37,372/- towards marriage expenses and Rs.2,000/- per

month for three years as past maintenance. The amounts were

to carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date

of the original petition.

4. We have heard the learned counsel on either side.

2025:KER:83681

5. The main argument of the appellant is that, the

parties belong to a Scheduled Tribe, the Hindu Adoptions and

Maintenance Act, 1956 does not apply, and hence the claim

will not lie.

6. Section 2 (2) of the Hindu Adoptions and

Maintenance Act reads thus;

"Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs."

It is not in dispute that the parties belong to the

Kanikkaran/Kanikkar community, which is a Scheduled Tribe.

It is accordingly that the appellant contends that the Act

does not apply and the father cannot be made liable for

maintenance and marriage expenses. The obligation of the

father to maintain the children has been well recognised and

is traced to Article 21 under the Indian Constitution.(See:

Mathew Varghese v. Rosamma Varghese [2003 KHC 362], Ismayil v. Fathima 2025:KER:83681

and another [2011 (3) KHC 825 (DB)] ). Therefore, the respondent

cannot escape his liability to maintain his daughter and to

provide the marriage expenses.

7. The Family Court granted a decree for

Rs.16,37,372/- towards marriage expenses based on the

evidence on record, namely, Exts.A3 to A5. So also the

maintenance awarded is only at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per

month, which cannot be held to be unreasonable.

8. It is to be noted that, admittedly, both the

father and mother are employed and are Government servants.

It is the duty of both the parents to maintain the child.

Such duty and liability cannot be cast exclusively on either

of them. Therefore, the maintenance expenses including the

marriage expenses of the daughter are to be shared by them.

Though the appellant claims that both the parents were

postmasters, there is no evidence with regard to the

separate income of the father and mother. Admittedly, the

mother had been incurring expenditure to maintain the 2025:KER:83681

daughter. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that,

from out of the total amount of marriage expenses and

maintenance, the liability of the father could be fixed at

2/3rd. The 2/3rd of the marriage expense is Rs.10,91,582/- and

the 2/3rd of the maintenance amount is Rs.48,000/-. The

judgment of the Family Court is liable to be modified to the

above extent.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The

petitioner is granted a decree for realisation of

Rs.11,39,582/- (10,91582 + 48,000) from the respondent, with

interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from 18.04.2013 (the

date of petition) till realisation.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

Sd/-

P. KRISHNA KUMAR JUDGE yd