Kerala High Court
Justin Jacob vs Preetha on 29 July, 2022
Author: Mary Joseph
Bench: Mary Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1944
RPFC NO. 588 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2018 IN MC NO.59/2017 OF FAMILY
COURT, NEDUMANGAD
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT :-
JUSTIN JACOB
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.K.S.JACOB, TC 4/580,
JOY BHAVAN, SREE VILAS LANE, KOWDIAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 003.
BY ADVS.
J.R.PREM NAVAZ J.R
SUMEEN S.(K/000187/2012)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS :-
1 PREETHA
W/O.JUSTIN JACOB, TC 6/1355(3), EAPPEN COTTAGE,
PADAYANI ROAD, MARUTHANKUZHY, VATTIYOORKKAVU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 013.
2 K.S.SEBASTIAN
AGED 11 YEARS, S/O.JUSTIN, T.C.6/1355(3), EAPPEN
COTTAGE, PADAYANI ROAD, MARUTHANKUZHY, VATTIYOORKKAVU
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 013.
3 K.S.SIBIN
AGED 9 YEARS, S/O.JUSTIN, TC 6/1355(3), EAPPEN COTTAGE,
PADAYANI ROAD, MARUTHANKUZHY, VATTIYOORKKAVU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 013.
RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR
GUARDIAN AND MOTHER, THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
BY ADV SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC NO. 588 OF 2018
2
ORDER
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2022 This revision is filed challenging an order passed by Family Court, Nedumangad (for short 'the court below') on 06.09.2018 in M.C.No.59/2017, which was an application filed under Section 127(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C'). 2. The respondents are wife and minor children of the petitioner. Original M.C.No.510/2014 was filed by the respondents under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumangad and Rs.3,500/-, Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively were awarded in favour of respondents 1 to 3. Thereafter, M.C.No.59/2017 was filed under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C and the court below was pleased to enhance the quantum of monthly maintenance allowance to Rs.4,000/-, Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,500/- respectively to respondents 1 to 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the revision on hand is filed.
3. It is contended by Sri. Prem Navas, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the first respondent wife is RPFC NO. 588 OF 2018 3 employed and is earning sufficient income and that aspect was not considered by the court below while enhancing the quantum of monthly maintenance allowance as above. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has also to maintain his age old mother, who is suffering from some age related ailments and the amount awarded at present if maintained, it would be difficult for him to maintain himself and his mother. It is contended by the learned counsel that at the time when the original M.C was considered, his net salary was Rs.10,076/- and Ext.R1 marked in evidence would disclose an increse of Rs.6,500/- in salary. Therefore, the total gross salary earned by him is Rs.16,580/- and the net salary is Rs.13,780/-.
4. This court has noticed that the enhancement in the income of the complainant is only Rs.6,500/-. The allegations that the first respondent is employed and is earning satisfactory income to maintain herself and the children are not sustainable for the reason that cogent evidence was not adduced to establish those aspects. The net salary of the petitioner being Rs.13,780/-, the RPFC NO. 588 OF 2018 4 court below is unjustified in granting an increase in the rate of monthly maintenance allowance as above. The revision is liable to be allowed in part.
5. In the result, the revision is allowed in part and the sum stands ordered as monthly maintenance allowance in favour of the first and second respondents are modified by reducing Rs.500/- from the amount stands ordered. The monthly maintenance allowance stands ordered in favour of the third respondent is maintained.
The learned counsel for the respondents made a submission that an interim order passed by this Court directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance at reduced rates, was not complied with by the petitioner and huge arrears is outstanding. The impugned order being one passed in the year 2018, this Court is inclined to direct the petitioner herein to deposit Rs.40,000/- in lumpsum before the court below within a period of one month and to pay the balance amount at the modified rates and the amount maintained in respect of the third respondent, in five equal RPFC NO. 588 OF 2018 5 monthly installments from September, 2022 onwards. The petitioner shall see that the monthly maintenance allowance now stands fixed is paid in each month itself, from September, 2022 onwards.
R.P.(FC) stands allowed in part.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH JUDGE SMA