Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2614
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ.
Sajan S/o Bahuleyan – Appellant
Versus
Preetha D/o Ponnappan – Respondent
Mat. Appeal No. 920 of 2024
Decided On : 25-08-2025
For the Appellants : M.A. Sulfia, Abdul Jaleel A.
For the Respondents: B. Pramod, Ajay S. Koshy, Athul M.V.
The court upheld the Family Court's decision on maintenance as fair, rejecting claims of incapacity based on medical reports.
Headnote:(A) Family Law - Maintenance - The appellant claimed inability to pay maintenance due to health conditions, supported by medical evaluations, but the court found no cause to intervene with the Family Court's judgment. (Paras 1-18)
(B) Original Petition Maintainability - The court determined that the respondent's petition for enhancing maintenance was maintainable, rejecting the appellant's hypertechnical arguments. (Paras 6-14)
Facts of the case:
The appellant contended unfitness to pay maintenance due to medical issues; the respondent denied this claim, asserting the appellant could work and earn.
Findings of Court:
The standing disability board's report indicated no significant disability impacting employment capability.
Issues: The core issues were the appellant's ability to pay maintenance and the formal maintainability of the enhancement petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Family Court's decision on maintenance, reaffirming the sufficiency of the designated amount for the respondent's needs, despite the appellant's claims of incapacity.
Result: Appeal dismissed without cost.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim of inability to pay maintenance due to health issues. (Para 1) |
| 2. assessment of appellant's ability to earn despite health claims. (Para 5 , 16) |
| 3. maintainability of the enhancement petition regarding prior judgments. (Para 6 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. evaluation of evidence and differing assertions about financial capability. (Para 7 , 10 , 13) |
| 5. final ruling dismissing the appeal on maintenance obligations. (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT :
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
1. This Appeal by the appellant is edificed on one factual assertion, that he is unable to pay the amount of Rs.6,000/- imposed against him as maintenance in favour of the respondent, because he is unwell and hence not in a position to earn.
2. Hearing Smt.M.A.Sulfia – learned counsel for the appellant, on the afore lines, we, on 30.05.2025, acceding to her request that her client be sent for a medical evaluation, passed the following order:
1. The learned Counsel for the appellant requested that his client be subjected to a Medical Board evaluation of his physical conditions; and offered to appear before the same any day of this Court's choice.
2. In fact, the learned Counsel for the respondent also welcomed such a course.
3. We, therefore, direct the appellant to mark appearance before the Superintendent of the Ernakulam Medical College at 11 A.M on 04.06.2025. We request the learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt.Mary Beena Joseph, to inform the Superintendent of the Ernakulam Medical College of this order and to request him to constitute a Medical Board, either on that day, or on a day to be fixed, for a complete evaluation of the appellant, particularly with respect to his alleged condition.
4. List, for report on 10.06.2025.
The Registry is directed to hand over a copy of this order to Smt.Mary Beena Joseph, learned Senior Government Pleader.
3. Thereafter, this matter was considered at least thrice; and we had altered the Medical Board to be at Kottayam. Finally, a report has been made available to us by the learned Government Pleader.
4. The standing Disability Assessment Board of the Government Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, has rendered an opinion that the appellant has ‘Pituitary Prolactinoma’ which can be medically managed, but that he has ‘Zero’ neurological disability.
5. Smt.M.A.Sulfia – learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that whatever be the contents of the report, the fact remains that her client is suffering from debilitating medical conditions and is not in a position to work at all. She insisted that her client is now being supported by his friends and relatives and therefore, cannot abide by the condition imposed against him. Interestingly, she then added that her client will be able to pay up to Rs.3,500/- per month, but is incapacitated from paying more than that.
6. Smt.M.A.Sulfia, thereafter, submitted that the petition filed by the respondent – wife seeking enhancement, is itself untenable because, there was an earlier proceeding between the parties which culminated in a judgment, ordering her client to pay Rs.2,000/- to the respondent as maintenance; and hence that, if the respondent required its enhancement, she ought to have moved an application for modification of the said judgment, rather than filing a fesh Original Petition.
7. Sri.B.Pramod – learned counsel for the respondent, in response, submitted that all the assertions of the appellant are belied by the report of the Standing Disability Assessment Board of the Medical College, Kottayam; and that this is a clear case where the appellant is refusing to work and then asserting that he does not have any income. He added that, though it may be true that the appellant is not a fully healthy person, having minor issues like ‘Pituitary Prolactinoma’ - which is a benign condition, his insistence that he does not have money to pay maintenance to his wife to an exiguous sum of Rs.6,000/- is unfair and uncharitable and he relied upon the judgment of this Court in Shamshad C. v. Shafee
