The court upheld that the marriage expenses were justified, reinforcing the obligation of a parent to contribute financially.

Devan Ramachandran,J.

The appellant assails the judgment of the learned Family Court, Ernakulam in O.P.No.595/2020 – filed by the respondents herein, being his former wife and daughter - wherein they sought expenses for marriage of the 2^nd respondent, which was stated to have been solemnized on

23.04.2017.

2. The learned Family Court allowed the original petition, granting an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards marriage expenses of the 2^nd respondent; and the appellant challenges the judgment on various grounds.

3. Sri.M.R.Sasi, learned counsel for the appellant, assisted by Smt.Arya Krishnakumar, argued that the original petition itself was not maintainable because, it was filed with an unexplained delay of three years – it having been filed in the year 2020, though the marriage was solemnized on 23.04.2017. He, then, submitted that his client had not been invited to the marriage and was not aware of the same; and hence, he is not liable to pay any amount as such ordered.

4. The learned counsel, thereupon, argued that the evidence on record clearly establish that the marriage was solemnized by the 2^nd respondent herein without even the consent of her mother - the 1^st respondent; and that she had lived her life of her own “free will”, thus not being entitled to any amount from his client. He supplemented this argument saying that the documents in evidence, namely Exts.A3, A4 and A5, do not, in any manner, prove that the respondents had spent any amount for the marriage, particularly when most of the bills - which form part of Ext.A5 series - are in the name of other people. He prayed that, therefore, this appeal be allowed.

5. In response, the learned counsel for the respondents - Smt.Kala. T.Gopi, submitted that the above assertions are without any basis, because Ext.A3 series of bills were issued to her clients by the “NSS Karayogam”, which had taken care of the logistical and other requirements of the marriage; while, Ext.A4 is the bill obtained from the catering contractor, a certain Mr.Sadasivan for an amount of Rs.56,000/-. She asserted that this would indubitably prove that the marriage was conducted by the 1^st respondent; and alleged that the findings of the learned Family Court in the impugned judgment are factually incorrect because, even assuming that some of the bills towards marriage expenses were in the name of other people – pointing out they are the relatives of the 1^st respondent - one among them, as rightly found by the learned Family Court, stands in the name of the 1^st respondent, for a sum of Rs.3.15 lakhs, towards value of gold ornaments purchased. She further argued that the evidence of PW2, who is a relative of the respondents, could not have been jettisoned by the learned Family Court, finding it to be interested because, he spoke unambiguously on the purchase of the gold ornaments for the marriage as evident, by Ext.A5 series and explained that some of them are in the name of close relatives. She contended that, when the marriage happened in her clients' family, all relatives became involved; and hence, that the fact of the bills being in the name of some of them, cannot take away the case of her clients for the claim of marriage expenses.

6. We notice that the learned Family Court allowed the parties to trial and recorded the testimony of the parties as PW1 and RW1, along with that of PW2, who spoke on the side of the respondents herein. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the respondents herein; while, Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the appellant.

7. The admitted facts, which remain uncontested, are that the appellant a