Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 2352
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
ANEESHAN – Appellant
Versus
ANANYA C. – Respondent
RPFC 349/2016
SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.P.RAHUL
The court highlighted that a revision petitioner's ability to earn income mandates their obligation to support dependents under maintenance laws, reinforcing social justice principles.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Family Law - Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 125, 127 - The court upheld the provision for maintenance, emphasizing the duty of the revision petitioner to support his wife and children. It confirmed the increased maintenance allowances based on the petitioners' demonstrated needs and the revision petitioner's deemed income.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioner, after previously agreeing to a maintenance amount, faced petitions for increased maintenance from his wife and children due to changed financial circumstances. The revision petitioner admitted to his marriage and paternity but contested the need for increased maintenance, citing his low income and children's free education.
Finding of the Court:
The Family Court found that despite the revision petitioner's claims of low income due to alleged health issues, he was an able-bodied person capable of earning. The Court noted the agreed maintenance amounts were insufficient given the current needs, leading to an order for increased payments.
Issues: Whether there was sufficient change in circumstances to justify an enhancement of maintenance and if the revision petitioner was capable of paying increased amounts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed the principle that maintenance provisions serve social justice and establish a legal obligation on able-bodied individuals to support their dependents, regardless of their claimed hardships, unless legally justified.
Final Decision: The revision petition is dismissed, confirming the order for increased maintenance.
COMMON ORDER
As these revision petitions are filed challenging the common order in M.C Nos.75 and 77 of 2015 and arise between the same parties, they are being disposed of by the common order. RP(FC) No.349/2016 is filed challenging the order in MC No.75/2015 and RP(FC) No.350/2016 is filed challenging the order in M.C No.77/2015. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the Family Court.
Brief facts
2. The revision petitioner was married to Nisha.C and in their wedlock two children named, Agil and Ananya were born. The marital relationship got strained. The wife and children filed M.C No.252/2011 before the Family Court, against the revision petitioner, seeking an order of separate maintenance allowance. During the course of the proceedings, the parties were referred to the Lok Adalath and the revision petitioner agreed to pay monthly maintenance allowance to the wife @ Rs.900/-, to the older child @ Rs.600/- and to the younger child @ Rs.500/-. Accordingly, the Family Court allowed M.C No.252/2011. Subsequently, the wife and older child filed MC No.77/2015 and the younger child filed MC No.75/2015 under Sec.127(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, “Code”), seeking for enhancement of maintenance allowance @ Rs.5,000/-, Rs.4,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively. It was their common case that subsequent to the settlement arrived at before the Adalath, the children have started studying and the wife and children do not have the means to maintain themselves. The revision petitioner is an expert auto mobile mechanic and is earning Rs.40,000/- per month. Therefore, he is liable to pay enhanced maintenance allowance to the wife and children as sought for in the applications.
3. The revision petitioner resisted both the applications by filing separate counter statements. However, he admitted the marriage as well as the paternity of the children. He contended that the children were studying in Anganwadi and getting free food and education. Thus, there has been no change of circumstances in three years after the passing of the award by the Adalath. He admitted that he was working as a vehicle mechanic in Hi-tech Motors and was only drawing a salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. However, he lost his job due to the pain in his legs. He has no regular source of income. The applications are filed only to harass the revision petitioner. He has to look after his aged parents. Hence, the applications may be dismissed.
4. The Family Court consolidated and jointly tried both the applications.
5. The wife was examined as PW1 and the revision petitioner was examined as RW1.
6. The Family Court, after appreciating the pleadings and materials placed on record, by the impugned common order, partly allowed the applications by ordering the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.2,500/- to the wife, Rs.4,000/- to the older child and Rs.3,000/- to the younger child.
7. It is assailing the said common order; the present revision petitions are filed.
8. Heard; Sri.P.P Ramachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. Even though notice has been served on the respondents, there is no appearance for them.
9. Is there any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned common order?
10. The revision petitioner admits that he was married to Nish.C and the children were born in the wedlock. He also does not dispute the fact that he had agreed to maintain the wife and children @ Rs.900/-, Rs.600/- and Rs.500/- respectively, and the order in MC No.252/2011 was passed. It is after four years that the wife and children filed M.C Nos.75 and 77 of 2015, under Sec.127(1) of the Code, for enhancement of maintenance on the ground of change of circumstances.
11. The case of the wife and children was that the revision petitioner was an expert auto mobile mechanic and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month.
12. The revision petitioner’s defence was that although he is an auto mobile mecha
