A father has a legal obligation to provide for his children's marriage expenses, and claims of financial incapacity must be substantiated to modify existing maintenance decrees.

JUDGMENT :

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

We are considering these Appeals together and are disposing them of through this judgment jointly, since the factual factors involved are similar; while, the parties are common.

2. These Appeals – both filed by the same appellant - arise out of two different Original Petitions, namely O.P.Nos.863/2016 and 31/2016 - both on the files of the learned Family Court, Attingal.

3. While O.P.No.31/2016 was filed by two girls, seeking marriage expenses and arrears of maintenance from their father – the appellant; the latter filed O.P.No.863/2016 seeking that an earlier decree obtained by the former and their mother in O.P.No.1844/2003 - granting them certain amounts as maintenance from him - be modified, since he does not have the means to honour the same.

4. The learned Family Court took both the Original Petitions to trial jointly; and on the side of the respondents, Exts.A1 to A9 were produced; while, the first among them, along with three others - including their mother, offered testimony as PW1 to PW4. On the side of the appellant, he examined himself as RW1 and got another witness to testify as RW2; also marking Exts.P1 to P10 in evidence.

5. The gravamen of the assertion of the appellant in both these Appeals is that he is not financially capable of honouring the decree of the learned Family Court in O.P.No.31/2016 - which directed him to pay Rs.20,00,000/- each to his daughters towards marriage expenses; nor that in O.P.No.1844/2003 - directing him to pay certain amounts as maintenance to his wife and children. He maintains that his financial disability is on account of his allegedly debilitating medical condition, leading to ill health; and tried to establish this through two documents, namely Exts.B4 and B5, purportedly to prove that he has a cardiac issue. Adscititiously, he contends that he is not liable to pay any amount - either towards maintenance, or as marriage expenses to his daughters – because, they are being taken care by her mother, who is a retired Government servant, with a pension of Rs.15,000/- per month and who had obtained more than Rs.30,00,000/- as retiral benefits. He further argues that his wife has valuable properties in her name; and that his daughters are taking “tuition classes” to earn for themselves; thus he being not liable to provide for them in any manner.

6. Contending as afore, the appellant as RW1, in his testimony conceded that he has 50 cents of land, along with 26.05 cents of other properties, but alleged that he is not in a position to use the same, since they are all under attachment at the hands of his daughters.

7. In response, however, the specific case of the respondents is that the appellant is not medically incapacitated, as asserted by him; and that the medical documents on record, namely, Exts.B4 and B5, would only show that he had some cardiac issue in the past. The mother of the children testified as PW2, to confirm that she is drawing pension and that she received Rs.10,00,000/- as retiral benefits; but explained that she had used it all for the education, medical and other expenses of her children.

8. The respondents - children also contended that their father had, in fact, offered to convey either 25 cents of landed property in their names, or to pay Rs.25,00,000/- to each of them, by selling the said property, towards the marriage expenses; and pointed out that, even in his pleadings, he has made this concession, agreeing that he will honour such amounts, as and when they are to be married. They assert that, since they are facing uncertainty in life, they have not been able to find life partners and that they can do so only if the appellant honours his words.

9. The learned Family Court allowed O.P.No.31/2016, finding conclusively that the appellant is liable to take care of his chil