Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, C.S. Sudha, JJ
BINU SOMARAJAN – Appellant
Versus
INDRAJITH – Respondent
OP (FC) 494/2023
Maintenance - Family Law - Section 13B, Family Courts Act - The court interpreted provisions governing maintenance, emphasizing financial obligations of parents post-divorce, leading to enhanced support for children based on their needs and father's financial capacity.
Fact of the Case:
After a divorce, a father was directed to pay maintenance for his children, but failed to comply, prompting the mother to seek execution of the order. The court examined previous agreements and the father's financial status.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the father's non-compliance was willful and that the maintenance amounts were inadequate considering the children’s needs. The order for higher maintenance was justified based on the father's financial capacity.
Issues: Whether the maintenance amounts set for the children were adequate considering the father's financial situation and the conditions of prior agreements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the maintenance amounts should reflect the actual needs of the children and the father's ability to pay, allowing for an increase in the daughter's support.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the father's appeals and modified the maintenance amount for the daughter to Rs.25,000.
JUDGMENT
[OP (FC) Nos.494/2023, Mat.A.132/2023 & 708/2022]
Amit Rawal, J.
1. Mat.Appl.708/2022 titled as Binu Somarajan v. Indrajith and Others, is preferred by the father/husband challenging the order dated 30.05.2022 in O.P.(Others)No.466/2017 ordering maintenance to the son - 1st respondent to the tune of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) per month till attainment of majority and Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) per month to the daughter - 2nd respondent till marriage, with a further direction to adjust the amount in the FD accounts opened in the name of children with the maintenance amount, for, the marriage between the husband and wife namely Binu Somarajan and Jiny Raj had been dissolved by way of judgment and decree dated 16.05.2014 in O.P.(HMA)No.1427/2014; O.P.(FC)No.494/2023 is against the order dated 21.06.2023 passed in E.A.No.100/2022 in E.P.No.26/2022 in O.P.No.466/2017 titled as Binu somarajan represented by power of attorney holder Reji.S v. Indrajith and Others and Mat. Appeal No.132/2023 by wife and children against father/husband for setting aside condition No.3 contained in the impugned order dated 30.05.2022 and for further enhancement of the compensation keeping in view the financial status of the father/husband. Since the parties are same, we intend to dispose of all the cases together.
2. This is a classic case where father, namely, Sri.Binu Somarajan working as Accountant in Gulf and earning Rs.3 lakhs per month married Jiny Raj on 03.02.2001 according to the ceremonies prevailing among their community and out of the wedlock, two children namely Indrajith-son were born on 01.02.2002 and daughter Indraja on 23.11.2005. Parties are Hindu by religion and caste. Owing to the differences between the husband and the wife, marriage was dissolved on 16.05.2014 in O.P.(HMA)No.1427/2014 as per the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 23.10.2013. Vide Clauses 3 and 5 of the agreement, father/husband had agreed to open FD in the name of children and agreed to bear all the expenses ie., maintenance of the children, but non-compliance of the same impelled the wife and children to file O.P.No.466/2017. By that time the maintenance as required to be paid by the father/husband had burgeoned exponentially. It was stated that the amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) was needed for the treatment and medicine of Indraja, who is studying in 6th class and undergoing treatment for static encephalopathy in various hospitals and the son would require at least a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). In all Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) was claimed for the expenses of both the children. The aforementioned petition was contested by the father/husband through power of attorney. Trial Court on the basis of the evidence, vide judgment and decree dated 30.05.2022, allowed the petition and issued the following directions:
1) Respondent is directed to pay maintenance to the 1st petitioner @ Rs.5,000/- per month from 02.08.14 till he attains majority and pay maintenance to the second petitioner @15,000/- per month from 02.08.14 till she gets married. Respondent is directed to comply with this direction in one month failing which petitioners are entitled to recover the amount through due process of law.
2) Past maintenance will carry interest @ 6% from the date of decree till realization.
3) Respondent is allowed to adjust the amount be deposited in the name of petitioners 1 and 2 in fixed deposits with the amount due in this petition.
4) There will be no order as to costs.
3. The aforementioned amount, as determined by the judgment and decree was also not complied with, necessitating the decree holders ie., the children and the mother/wife to file E.P.No.26/2022. During the pendency of the E.P., E.A.No.100/2022 was filed for attachment of the bank account No.18702300003770 of Federal Bank branch. Husband/father submitted application No.23/2023 for lifting the attachment order by mak
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
