The court upheld the maintenance amount while slightly modifying it for past payments, emphasizing shared financial responsibility.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

This Appeal has been impelled by the appellant solely against the quantum fixed by the learned Family Court, Ernakulam, qua the past maintenance to his child in O.P.No.2535/2018.

2. Sri.Santheep Ankarath – learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the quantum fixed by the learned Family Court, namely Rs.20,000/- per month, to the child is grossly in excess because the mother has been found to be capable of equal or more financial resources. He contended that, therefore, it should be construed that the learned Family Court has, in fact, found the quantum of maintenance to the child to be Rs.20,000/- per month (taking that the burden is to be shared equally between the father and mother) and hence that the amount fixed on his client is inequitable. He thus prayed that the amount in question be reduced, which he suggested to be Rs.10,000/- per month.

3. Sri.S.Vinod Bhat – learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the afore arguments cannot lie in the mouth of the petitioner because, he has already suffered an adverse order from this Court in RP(FC)No.132/2023, which arose from the order in M.C.No.395/2018 of the same learned Family Court, wherein, an amount of Rs.20,000/- was fixed to be the future maintenance eligible to the child. He pointed out that a learned Judge of this Court has already held that the father has more than enough fiscal capacity to honour the amount of Rs.20,000/- and hence found in favour of the findings of the learned Family Court. He predicated that, once such a view has been taken by this Court, a contrary view cannot be sought to be made in this Appeal. He thus prayed that this Appeal be dismissed.

4. We have obtained a copy of the final order in RP(FC)No.132/2023 – which was handed over across the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties.

5. We notice therefrom that a learned Judge of this Court has held as under:

8. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the quantum of maintenance awarded to the child is excessive. It is also submitted that the Family Court erred in ordering interest to the maintenance which is not permissible under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The counsel for the respondents submitted that the minor child is now major and huge amount is pending as arrears and the same is not paid by the revision petitioner.

9. This Court considered the contentions of the revision petitioner and the respondents. The liability to pay maintenance is not disputed by the revision petitioner. A perusal of the evidence of RW1 would show that he is a man of sufficient means. In such circumstances, an amount of Rs.20,000/- fixed by the trial court as maintenance cannot be treated as excessive considering the present day circumstances of a child, who is pursuing her studies. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial court. But the payment of interest for the maintenance ordered under Section 125 Cr.P.C may not be sustainable. Therefore, that part of the order, by which the interest is awarded for the maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C can be set aside. The revision petitioner submitted that some time may be granted to pay the arrears of maintenance because there is huge amount to be paid and coercive steps are taken by the Family Court for recovering the amount. I think the revision petitioner can be given six monthly installments to clear the arrear amount due.

Therefore, this revision petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. The maintenance order of Rs.20,000/- awarded to the 1st respondent by the Family Court is confirmed.

2. The interest at the rate of