Back
2022 Supreme(Ker) 933
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
AMALDEV S/O VASU – Petitioner
Versus
PREEJA D/O PALLATHERI PREMDAS – Respondent
R.P. (FC) No. 264 of 2022
Decided On : 19-12-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: T.N. MANOJ.
For the Respondent: SIRAJ KAROLY.
Point of Law: Section 125 provides a speedy remedy for supply of food, clothing and shelter to deserted wife.
Headnote:
Family Court Act, 1984 - Section 19(4) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 397, 401, 125 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 24 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 15(3), 39 - Grant of Allowance - Maintenance - Respondents had approached the Family Court and pressed for grant of allowance of maintenance - Merely because wife is earning money, it could not be a ground to reject claim for maintenance.
Findings of the Court:
Revision petitioner, a professionally qualified person, could very well earn a reasonable sum, to maintain wife and child by paying Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- each, ordered by Family Court and same is his statutory obligation - If at all he could not do job, according to his qualification, he shall do other jobs so as to earn sufficient income - It is true that treatment, if any, of mother also has to be attended by revision petitioner - But foregoing discussions would go to show that revision petitioner could give treatment to his mother also after earning a substantial sum, since Rs. 9,000/- alone was amount granted as maintenance allowance in this case - In view of above, it has to be held that Family Court, after evaluating materials available, after holding that respondents did not have any means of maintenance, granted only minimum amount of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- as maintenance to respondents and said amount could not be held as on higher side, in any way.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act read with Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision petitioner, who is the respondent in M.C. No. 54/2017 on the files of the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, impugns order dated 20.05.2022 in the above M.C. arraying the petitioners in the above M.C. as respondents.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondents.
3. The respondents herein, who are the wife and minor child, aged 1½ years (in 2017), had approached the Family Court and pressed for grant of allowance of maintenance on the assertion that they did not have any means of maintenance. The further case put up by the respondents before the Family Court was that the revision petitioner is an Automobile Mechanic and had been earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. Further he had landed properties. Accordingly, the respondents pressed for grant of maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- respectively to them.
4. The revision petitioner/respondent filed counter denying his job as an Automobile Mechanic, running workshop. He also denied landed properties in his name or any job. It was contended by the revision petitioner before the trial court that he was assisting his uncle, who was doing business of ayurverdic herbs and was getting Rs. 8,000/- per month. Further, he pointed out treatment expenses of his mother, who suffers from kidney failure.
5. The Family Court appraised the contentions while trying the M.C. along with O.P. No. 691/2016 and O.P. No. 295/2017 and as per common order/judgment dated 20.05.2022 the Family Court granted maintenance to the petitioners @ Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- respectively, from the date of the petition.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued at length to convince this Court that the revision petitioner had produced Ext.B8 salary certificate, showing his monthly income to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- before the Family Court and the Family Court failed to take note of that aspect while fixing the quantum of maintenance as Rs. 9,000/- per month (5000+4000). The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further argued that as per Annexure-A also, the revision petitioner has placed his salary certificate showing the income as Rs. 12,161/-. In fact, Annexure-A cannot be considered in this case since it should have been produced before the Family Court in accordance with the procedure established by law to let the same in evidence.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner placed a decision of the Delhi High Court reported in Akanksha Jain vs. Manish Jain, (2014) 0 Supreme (Del) 566 pointing out paragraphs 29 to 32 of the above judgment to contend that quantum of maintenance shall be reasonable amount after taking into consideration the income of the spouses and the needs of the claimants having regard to the status of the parties, the family background, the standard of living to which the claimant has been accustomed, legal and other obligations of the person liable to make the payment and other relevant circumstances. Paragraphs 29 to 32 of the above judgment read as follows:
“29. It is true that in various cases of similar nature, parties do not truthfully reveal their income, status of the family, details of the properties owned by them. Similar things have happened on the present case. Considering the overall view and facts and circumstances, as already stated in the earlier part of the order, this Court is not inclined to grant maintenance for the period starting from the date of application under Section 24 of the Act upto 31st January 2012 when the full disclosure was made. However, the petitioner is entitled to receive maintenance after the said period. It is the admitted position that the petitioner does not have any financial support from any quarter. Let me now examine the aspect of quantum of maintenance from the period starting from 1st February, 2012 till disposal of the divo
