Kerala High Court
Lal V.S vs Ashlyv. Lal on 13 August, 2015
Author: P.Ubaid
Bench: P.Ubaid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/27TH MAGHA, 1937
RPFC.No. 432 of 2015 ()
------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN MC.NO. 185/2014 OF FAMILYCOURT, THALASSERY
DATED 13-08-2015
-----------------
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT :
---------------------------------------------------------
LAL V.S.,
AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.SAMUEL A.,
VIZHALIL HOUSE, EZHAKKADAVU P.O., CHERUKOL
MAVELIKKARA.
BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS :
-----------------------------------------------
1. ASHLYV. LAL,
AGED 14 YEARS (MINOR)
2. ALWIN V. LAL
AGED 11 YEARS (MINOR)
MINORS REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NEXT
FRIEND ANIPRABHA @ ANILAL
D/O.BENJAMIN, AGED 38 YEARS
VIZHALIL HOUSE, VAYATHUR AMSOM DESOM
PERATTA, KOOTTUPUZHA P.O., IRITTY
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 706.
R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY
SRI.K.S.SUMEESH
THIS REV.PETITION (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 16-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
P.UBAID, J.
===========================
R.P.F.C.No.432 of 2015
===========================
Dated this the 16th day of February, 2016
ORDER
The revision petitioner herein is aggrieved by a maintenance order obtained by his children (two sons) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from the Family Court, Thalassery. They brought claim through their mother in 2014 as MC No.185 of 2014. The revision petitioner resisted the claim on the contention that he does not have much means to pay as claimed by the children. Practically he took a stand that he can pay reasonably. The court below recorded evidence on both sides including documentary evidence. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found that the revision petitioner has sufficient means to pay maintenance to his children, aged 13 years and 10 years respectively at the time of claim. R.P.F.C.No.432/2015 2 Accordingly, the trial court directed the revision petitioner to pay maintenance to the children at the rate of 3,500/- each per month by order dated 13.08.2015. He is aggrieved, and his grievance is regarding the quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial court.
2. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials including the impugned order, I find that some interference can be reasonably made in the order passed by the court below, and the amount of maintenance can be reasonably modified. It has come out in evidence that the revision petitioner does not have any stable income. However, it is practically admitted that he is a private contractor, and his earnings according to him is only 8,000/- per month. This is quite unacceptable. True it is that he does not have any stable income. However, it is admitted that he has been doing some contract works, and earning sufficient income. On a consideration of the entire aspects including his probable income, I feel that 3,000/- each per month will be the adequate and reasonable amount, ofcourse, subject to further periodic modification under Section 127 Cr.P.C. as and when R.P.F.C.No.432/2015 3 their needs and necessities increase, and circumstances change.
In the result, this Revision Petition is allowed in part. The maintenance order in favour of the respondents herein passed by the court below in MC No.185 of 2014, will stand modified to the effect that the amount of maintenance payable to them by the revision petitioner shall be 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) each per month from the date of the petition as ordered by the trial court, subject to periodic enhancements under Section 127 Cr.P.C. as and when the circumstances change, and the needs and necessities of the children increase.
Sd/-
P.UBAID JUDGE rkj //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE