Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1113
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
S.V. HARI – Appellant
Versus
SHREYA – Respondent
RPFC 298/2014
SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP, SRI.ABE RAJAN, SRI.SHANE WILFRED MORRIS, SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR
Maintenance provisions protect dependents and allow for judicial discretion in estimating income to ensure a reasonable standard of living.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Family Law - Code of Criminal Procedure Sec. 125, Family Courts Act Sec. 19(4), Sec. 127 - The court upheld the Family Court's order for maintenance, emphasizing social justice provisions protecting wives and children, allowing reassessment in case of changed circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed an application for maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Code, claiming financial need from the revision petitioner, who contested the claim on grounds of prior payments and his financial situation.
Finding of the Court:
The Family Court ordered the revision petitioner to pay Rs.7,000/- monthly maintenance, which was contested as excessive given his net salary. The court upheld the amount after considering the principles of social justice.
Issues: Whether the Family Court's maintenance order was justifiable considering the revision petitioner's financial situation and the respondent's claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that maintenance is a right for dependents, and the Family Court may estimate the husband's income, balancing his savings against the respondents' right to a standard of living.
Final Decision: The revision petition is dismissed, maintaining the Family Court's maintenance order.
ORDER
The revision petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order in M.C No.464/2011 of the Family Court, Nedumangad, ordering the revision petitioner to pay the respondents - his daughter and wife - monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.3,000/- and Rs.4,000/- respectively, The revision petitioner was the respondent and the respondents 1 and
2 were the petitioners before the Family Court.
Brief facts
2. The respondents 1 and 2 had filed the application under Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, “Code”), against the revision petitioner, seeking monthly maintenance allowance from him. It was their case that the second respondent is the wife of the revision petitioner. The first respondent is the child born in their wedlock. The revision petitioner has refused to maintain the respondents 1 and 2 from 19.6.2010 onwards. The respondents 1 and 2 do not have any source of income and they are unable to maintain themselves. The revision petitioner is working in Railways and is drawing a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-. The respondents 1 and 2 require Rs.10,000/- for their monthly maintenance allowance. Hence, the application.
3. The revision petitioner filed a written objection denying the allegations in the application. He contended that the second respondent had filed MC No.33/2010 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumangad, and the application was allowed by ordering the revision petitioner to pay the second respondent Rs.1500/- per month. It is the second respondent who deserted the revision petitioner. The amount of maintenance claimed by the respondents 1 and 2 is excessive. Hence, the application may be dismissed.
4. In the trial, the second respondent was examined as PW1 and Exts P1 to P3 were marked through her in evidence. The revision petitioner was examined as CPW1.
5. The Family Court, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned order, partly allowed the application as observed above.
6. It is assailing the said order; the revision petition is filed.
7. Heard; Sri.V.Jayapradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, Sri.J.Jayakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the third respondent/State – a formal party.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner argued that in view of the subsequent developments that have occurred, the revision petitioner is no longer liable to maintain the respondents. The second respondent has already remarried and she has secured an employment in the University. The second respondent has already sent a letter to the Family Court stating that she does not want any amount as maintenance from the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner has produced copies of the said documents in the revision petition and prays that the impugned order may be cancelled as against the second respondent.
9. The revision petitioner admits his marriage with the second respondent and the paternity of the first respondent.
10. It is on record that the revision petitioner was working in the Railways as Sweeper cum Porter-II, in the Kochuveli railway station. As per Ext P3 salary certificate, the revision petitioner was drawing a gross salary of Rs.18,000/- and after deduction, he was drawing a net salary of Rs.6,137/-.
11. The Family Court, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, deemed it proper to direct the revision petitioner to pay the respondents 1 and 2 monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.7,000/-.
12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that it was illegal and irrational for the Family Court to have ordered the revision petitioner to pay the respondents Rs.7,000/- per month, when he was only drawing Rs.6,137/- per month.
13. In the celebrated decision inRajnesh v. Neha and Anr. [ 2020 (6) KHC 1 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Maintenance laws have been enacted as a measure of social just
