The court concluded that past maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month for minors was insufficient, asserting a minimum of Rs.10,000/- as necessary for basic living expenses.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellants challenge the judgment of the learned Family Court, Kannur, in O.P.No.1975/2024, solely because it has awarded them past maintenance from their father - namely the respondent, only at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each, though they had asked for Rs.15,000/- each.

2. Sri.Adith Kiran – learned counsel for the appellants, argued that, when the respondent remained ex parte before the learned Trial Court and when his clients were able to establish that he was drawing a minimum salary of Rs.1 Lakh per month - since he is working as an Assistant Sales Tax Officer, the learned Family Court erred in confining the amount of monthly maintenance to each of his clients to a mere Rs.5,000/- per month. He argued that the children are now 16 and 13 years respectively, thus requiring large amounts for their education, upkeep, maintenance, food and such other; and prayed that, therefore, the requested amount of Rs.15,000/- be granted to them each.

3. Sri.Rajesh S. Subrahmanian – learned counsel for the respondent, in response, submitted that his client is not in a position to pay the amounts sought for because, he has other commitments. He, however, conceded that his client remained ex parte before the learned Family Court and has not yet made any application to have the impugned judgment set aside.

4. We notice from the impugned order that evidence in this case comprises of the oral testimony of PW1, namely the mother of the appellants; and Exts.A1 and A2, which are their Birth Certificates.

5. As rightly argued by Sri.Adith Kiran, the appellants sought Rs.15,000/- each towards past maintenance, but their plea has been granted only to a sum of Rs.5,000/- each. The learned Family Court has held that the appellants have not been able to prove their ‘actual living expenses’, though they are studying in the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Payyannur, where ‘there would not be huge educational expenses towards tuition fees’ (sic). It nevertheless found that the children will require amounts for purchasing books, study materials, as also for ‘nutritious food, decent dress, medical attentions and facilities for their overall mental and physical development’ (sic); to then presume that, since they are being taken care of by their mother, she would have to take the burden of at least half their expenses and thus fixed the amount against the respondent as Rs.5,000/- each.

6. We must say that we cannot find the mentation of the learned Family Court to be acceptable because, the children are, as seen earlier, around 16 and 13 years respectively. They are in the formative years of their lives, dreaming for higher education and such other. The sum of Rs.5,000/- per month is too exiguous, that it cannot take care of even the basic requirements of the children, like food, medicines and such other. We are persuaded that each of them would require a minimum of Rs.10,000/- per month, which is the least that they can seek to have a decent living; and are certain that this figure would be apposite because it relates to the past maintenance, though the requirements for assessment of future maintenance would be totally different.

7. In summation, we are of the firm opinion that the impugned judgment is liable to be modified, thus granting each of the appellants Rs.10,000/- per month as past maintenance; thus entitling them Rs.3,60,000/- each.

This Appeal is thus allowed with costs to the appellants.

Sd/-