The court reaffirmed the obligation of a parent to financially support their child, especially in educational and maintenance matters.

JUDGMENT DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J The appellant challenges the judgment and decree of the learned Family Court, Nedumangad, in O.P.No.1181 of

2017, as being illegal and unlawful.

2. The afore original petition had been filed by the respondents-who are the wife and daughter of the appellant, seeking return of gold ornaments and patrimony of the first among them, as also for maintenance and education/marriage expenses of the latter. The learned Family Court has allowed the original petition in part, permitting the 2^nd respondent to recover Rs.20 lakhs towards her education and marriage expenses, along with Rs.10,000/- per month as monthly maintenance; and has also allowed her to recover Rs.2,40,000/- towards arrears. These amounts have been directed to be paid back by the appellant personally and from his assets.

3. Sri.Adithya Rajeev - the learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the findings of the learned Family Court, that his client did not take care of his family are untrue; and that, it is in fact, the respondents who had deserted him after he became ill on account of an accident in the year 2015. He argued that his client was working abroad until 2015, when he had returned to India; and that he had been paying them a substantial amount, every month at that time, which has not been disclosed. He argued that his client is now suffering from paralysis, thus unable to fend for himself; and added that he does not have any employment since he was originally working as a Coolie, but which is now impossible for him to continue. He prayed that, consequently, this appeal be allowed.

4. Sri.D.Ajith Kumar - the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the evidence on record speaks a completely different story. He pointed out that the 1^st respondent is a person who was afflicted with polio in her childhood and that she met with an accident in the year 2013, when the appellant - who was abroad at that time - did not even care to take care of her, or to meet her treatment expenses. He added that, as his client has testified as PW1, the appellant deserted his family from

15.08.2015 and that it is only by the sheer dint of her own effort and enterprise that the 1^st respondent supported the 2^nd respondent, who was pursuing B.Com Degree at “Sree Sankara Vidya Peedom”, expending large amounts of money. He explained that the 2^nd respondent-daughter needs a minimum of Rs.20,000/- per month, to meet her day-to-day expenses - including tuition fee, dress, food etc; and that the learned Family Court has only mulcted half of this amount on the father, which cannot be denied by him.

5. Sri.D.Ajith Kumar then contended that, the argument of the appellant that he is suffering physically, can never be believed because, even in the evidence that he offered as RW1, he testified that he had an accident in the year 2015, after which he was suffering from minor ailments. He contended that the evidence would further establish that the appellant is running a business in vegetables in his own building and is also engaged in real estate transactions, getting a monthly income of more than Rs.1 lakh per month. He concluded saying that the 2^nd respondent was 19 years at the time when the impugned judgment was delivered, but has been unable to get married because she does not have the resources for it; and hence that the learned Family Court was without error in having allowed the original petition, as it has done.

6. As rightly argued by the learned counsel on both sides, the original petition has been allowed by the Family Court only in part, disallowing the plea of the 1^st respondent for return of the gold and money. All which it has decreed are the aforesaid sums in favo