Gopika Sreekumar vs Athul Gopal
2025 Latest Caselaw 10002 Ker

Kerala High Court

Gopika Sreekumar vs Athul Gopal on 23 October, 2025

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

                                              2025:KER:78736
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

                              &

         THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA

THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1947

                   OP (FC) NO. 577 OF 2025

          AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 5/2025 IN OPHMA NO.54 OF

                2024 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM

  PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

            GOPIKA SREEKUMAR, AGED 29 YEARS
            W/O ATHULGOPAL GOPASREE HOUSE,
            VAKATHANAM, PARIYARAM P.О.
            KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
            REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
            AND BROTHER SREERAJ KUMAR, AGED 23 YEARS,
            S/O V.S.SREEKUMAR, GOPASREE HOUSE,
            VAKATHANAM, PARIYARAM P.O.
            KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686021.


            BY ADVS.
            SHRI.SARATH M.S.
            SHRI.LIJO JOHN THAMPY


  RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ORIGINAL PETITIONER:

            ATHUL GOPAL,
            S/O AJITHKUMAR, KANNOLA HOUSE,
            KODIMATHA, NATTAKOM P.O. KOTTAYAM,
            NOW WORKING AT MICROSOFT HEADQUARTES,
            MICROSOFT BUILDING 83, 4480,
                                              2025:KER:78736
OP (FC) NO. 577 OF 2025

                          -2-


         154TH PNE, REDMOND, PIN - 686013.


         BY ADVS.
         SHRI.MANU NAIR G.
         SRI.THOMAS P.MAKIL
         SHRI.BHARATH MURALI
         SHRI.AJAY SANKAR



     THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                  2025:KER:78736
OP (FC) NO. 577 OF 2025

                               -3-




                        JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order of the

learned Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor, which

has denied her plea for interim maintenance from the

respondent.

2. Concededly, the parties are husband and

wife; and the Original Petition, mentioned in

Ext.P1, has been filed by the respondent seeking

divorce from the petitioner. It is in such Original

Petition that the petitioner sought interim

maintenance, by filing IA No.5/2025, which now

stands dismissed.

3. We notice from Ext.P1 that the learned

Family Court has gone through the documents produced

by either side, to conclude that the petitioner is 2025:KER:78736 OP (FC) NO. 577 OF 2025

neither pursuing education, nor without financial

resources for her sustenance in the United States of

America (USA). The learned Court has relied upon

Ext.B2 Income Tax Returns and Ext.B3 declaration, to

conclude that the petitioner has her own income,

since she is paying tax and therefore, not entitled

to any interim maintenance from the respondent. The

Court has further relied upon Exts.B5 and B6 - the

latter being a screenshot of the story uploaded by

the petitioner in 'Instagram' - to conclude that she

is now working.

4. However, Sri.M.S.Sarath - learned counsel

for the petitioner, argued that his client's

specific case is that, though her formal course

leading to the degree of 'MS' has been completed,

she is under a kind of bonded employment, where she

has to do it compulsorily as per the terms of her

admission. He argued that, therefore, merely because 2025:KER:78736 OP (FC) NO. 577 OF 2025

her formal education is now complete, the learned

Family Court ought not to have entered into a

conclusion that she has enough resources to sustain

herself, particularly when she has stated in her

petition that she is living with the help from her

parents.

5. Sri.M.S.Sarath then contended that,

Exts.B2 and B3 would not prove the amount of income

that her client earns, if any, particularly because

there are joint declarations of Tax Returns by the

parties together; and further that, Exts.A1 to A3

would render it ineluctable that she requires large

amounts of money to live in the USA and to pay for

electricity and such other utilities. He thus prayed

that Ext.P1 be set aside.

6. Sri.Manu Nair G. - learned counsel for the

respondent, in refutation, argued that the claim of

the petitioner for interim maintenance is only to 2025:KER:78736 OP (FC) NO. 577 OF 2025

harass his client because, he had sought for divorce

from her. He explained that, when she has completed

her course and is working - as has been admitted -

she cannot seek any interim maintenance and that the

factum of her earning very well is evident from

Exts.B2 and B3, Tax Returns and declaration

respectively.

7. Sri.Manu Nair G. then asserted, referring

to Exts.A1 to A3, that, as the learned Family Court

has held, the first among the said documents, namely

the lease agreement, does not pertain to the

petitioner alone, but to a building in which there

are other occupants, and therefore, that she cannot

claim the amounts mentioned therein or in the

utility bills, namely Exts.A2 and A3, for herself.

He added that, in any event, it is his client's

specific case that Exts.A2 and A3 pertain to another

building and not the one shown in Ext.P1. He prayed 2025:KER:78736 OP (FC) NO. 577 OF 2025

that his Original Petition be, therefore, dismissed.

8. We have gone through Ext.P1, and are

constrained to say that we cannot find favour with

it. This is because, we find strength in the

submissions of both sides; and see that a few

germane issues have not been really touched upon by

the learned Family Court.

9. We say as afore because, it may be true

that the petitioner completed a course, but she says

that she is under compulsory employment, and there

is nothing on record to show what the income is that

she earns. Even though the learned Court has

adverted to Exts.B2 and B3, there is no mention in

the order as to what is the income she is earning

and what amount of tax she is paying exclusively.

10. Further, as rightly argued by Sri.Manu

Nair G., Exts.A1 to A4 relate to a building where

the petitioner is staying with other occupants.

2025:KER:78736 OP (FC) NO. 577 OF 2025

However, the share of the petitioner in the expenses

claimed had not been evaluated by the Court, and the

parties also did not lead any other evidence to

establish the same. As regards the argument of

Sri.Manu Nair G., that Exts.A2 and A3 belong to

another building, it is again a matter of proof,

which we think is to be established by the parties

through proper opportunities.

11. Obviously, this is a case where materials

are lacking on both sides.

12. We are, therefore, of the firm view that

the parties should be given an opportunity once

again, especially because the Original Petition is

one filed seeking divorce by the respondent.

In the afore circumstances, we allow this

Original Petition and set aside Ext.P1; with a

consequential direction to the learned Family Court

to reconsider IA No.5/2025 in OP(HMA)No.54/2024, 2025:KER:78736 OP (FC) NO. 577 OF 2025

after affording necessary opportunities to both

sides as expeditiously as is possible.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

Sd/-

M.B.SNEHALATHA akv JUDGE 2025:KER:78736 OP (FC) NO. 577 OF 2025

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 577/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF CERTIFIED COPY OF THE

IN O.P (HMA) NO: 54 OF 2024 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF O.P (HMA) NO. 54 OF 2024 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NUMBERED AS I.A NO: 5/2025 IN O.P (HMA) NO: 54/2024 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN I.A NO: 5/2025 IN O.P (HMA) NO: 54/2024 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 11.07.2024 PRODUCED AS EXT. A1 IN I.A NO: 5/2025 IN O.P (HMA) NO:

54/2024 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL OF A/C NO: 220034819049 DATED 20.11.2024 PRODUCED AS EXT. A2 IN I.A NO: 5/2025 IN O.P (HMA) NO: 54/2024 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO: 0172-

009759413 OF A/C NO: 3-0172-0164384 2025:KER:78736 OP (FC) NO. 577 OF 2025

DATED 31.10.2024 PRODUCED AS EXT. A3 IN I.A NO: 5/2025 IN O.P (HMA) NO:

54/2024 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOO

EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL COPY OF MICROSOFT CORPORATION EARNING STATEMENT DATED 15.12.2020 PRODUCED AS EXT. A4 IN I.A NO: 5/2025 IN O.P (HMA) NO: 54/2024 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR