Kerala High Court
Ramesan vs Abitha on 9 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1943
RPFC NO. 207 OF 2015
MC 56/2013 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
RAMESAN, AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNAN KUTTY, VALLATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,MELOOR
P.O., PRESENT ADDRESS: - C/O.LILLY,MANGALATH
VEEDU, PONOTH ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI - 682
017.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SUDHISH
SMT.M.MANJU
RESPONDENT/S:
1 ABITHA,AGED 32 YEARS
W/O.VALLATHUPARAMBIL RAMESAN, VETTUKADAVU
DESOM,MELOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR
-680 311.
2 SHARON MINOR
AGED 12 YEARS
S/O.RAMESAN, VETTUKADAVU DESOM, MELOOR
VILLAGE,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 311.REP
BY HIS MOTHER ABITHA, IST RESPONDENT.
3 SREYA MINOR, AGED 7 YEARS
D/O.RAMESAN, VETTUKADAVU DESOM, MELOOR
VILLAGE,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR - 680
311.REP. BY HER MOTHER ABITHA, IST RESPONDENT.
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC NO. 207 OF 2015
-2-
ORDER
(Dated this the 9th day of November, 2021) The respondent in M.C.No.56 of 2013 on the file of the Family court, Irinjalakuda has filed this R.P. (F.C.) against the order dated 20.1.2015. The said M.C. was filed by the respondents herein who are the wife and minor children born in the wedlock between the 1st petitioner and the respondent.
2. The marriage between petitioner herein and the 1st respondent was solemnised on 26.8.2001. The minor children were born on 17.4.2003 on 23.6.2007 respectively. According to the wife, her husband was working as an Advocate clerk in Ernakulam and he is getting Rs.20,000/- per month as income. Moreover, he is also doing truss work on contract basis and out of which, he earns Rs.30,000/- per RPFC NO. 207 OF 2015 -3- month. The wife's grievance is that the revision petitioner has refused to maintain the respondents from 20.11.2012 onwards by deserting them and living separately. The first respondent herein does not having any job of her livelihood and claimed Rs.5,000/- each as maintenance. According to her, she had received Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance up to November 2012 thereafter, the petitioner reduced the amount to the tune of Rs.2,000/- and the said amount is not sufficient to meet the day-to-day expenses of the respondents.
3. The revision petitioner filed a counter statement before the Family Court alleging that he was forced to leave the company of the respondents because of the humiliation made by first respondent and her brother. He further submitted that the respondents are residing in the house owned by him. RPFC NO. 207 OF 2015 -4- Moreover, the first respondent is working in a shop situated in Chalakudy and is getting Rs.8,000/- per month as salary. He is suffering from kidney stone and underwent treatment for an injury caused to his right leg. He had underwent treatment at Vimala Hospital, Kanjoor, as well as the Government Hospital, Ernakulam. Prolonged treatment was taken from Lissie hospital, Ernakulam also. His contention is because of his prolonged illness, he was unable to send any money as maintenance to the respondents.
4. The Family Court, on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence produced from both sides, came to the conclusion that the respondents herein are entitled to maintenance at the rate of 2,000/- each per month. The revision petitioner was directed to pay the maintenance from 11.3.2013 onwards.
RPFC NO. 207 OF 2015 -5-
5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Adv. Shri.Sri R Sudhish.
6. The counsel for petitioner submits that the Family Court had erred in granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondents, as he was always ready and willing to take them back with him and it was the respondents who were not willing to accompany him. He further submitted that since the respondents are living separately without any sufficient cause, they are not entitled to any maintenance. This present Revision Petition is filed in the year 2015 challenging the order dated 20.1.2015 in M.C.No.56 of 2013 on the file of the Family Court, Irinjalakduda. The 2nd respondent was 12 years when this revision was filed. Admittedly, she has now attained the age of majority on 17.4.2021.
RPFC NO. 207 OF 2015 -6-
7. It is an admitted fact that he has been sending money at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioners and only on account of some illness from April 2013 onwards, he was not able to send any amount to them. So, it is not a case in which he is not able to earn any income and to maintain his wife and children. His contention was that he was admitted in various hospitals for kidney stone and for an injury in his right leg. Those were during the year 2013 and he does not have a case that after 2013, he is not able to work and earn income. Since he is an able bodied and able to earn a living, definitely is legally and morally bound to maintain his wife and children who are the respondents. The Family Court rightly found that the respondents are entitled to maintenance and the quantum was fixed at Rs.2,000/- taking into consideration of the earning RPFC NO. 207 OF 2015 -7- capacity of the petitioner. It is true that the 2 nd respondent has attained the age of majority and under Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance can be claimed only by minor children except under sub clause (c) of 125 Cr.P.C., which deals that an unmarried daughter can claim maintenance even after attaining majority where such child by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself. For the above reasons, I find no illegality or impropriety in the finding of the Family Court and hence, the Revision Petition is dismissed.
The revision petitioner is free to invoke the provision under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., if there is change of circumstances and if so advised.
sd/-
BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE.
dl/