Kerala High Court
Arifa.P.K vs Abdul Rasakh on 16 December, 2009
Bench: R.Basant, M.C.Hari Rani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Mat.Appeal.No. 719 of 2009()
1. ARIFA.P.K,22 YEARS,D/O.ABDUL RASAKH,
... Petitioner
2. SAHALATH.N.P,19 YEARS,D/O.ABDUL RASAKH,
Vs
1. ABDUL RASAKH,AGED 49 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :16/12/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------
Mat.Appeal Nos.183 & 719 OF 2009
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Basant, J.
These appeals are directed against the very same order passed by the Family Court. Rival contestants have preferred these appeals. An original petition was filed by the appellants in Mat.A.No.179/09 claiming maintenance from their father, who is the appellant in Mat.A.No.183/09.
2. Marriage is admitted. It was contended by their father that the claimants are not unable to maintain themselves. It was contended that the respondent/father is ill and does not have any stable income. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The claimants examined themselves as PWs 1 and 2. They are major daughters of the respondent/father. The respondent/father examined himself as RW1. He examined two witnesses as RWs 2 and 3. They were examined in support of his assertion that the claimants/daughters are employed. The claimants proved Exhibit A1 document, whereas the respondent/father produced Exhibit B1 series to show that he was having ailments and Exhibit B2, to Mat.A.Nos.183 & 719/09 -2- show that the claim of the claimants under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stood rejected on the ground that they have attained majority.
3. The court below in these circumstances came to the conclusion that the claimants/adult major daughters of the respondent/father are entitled for maintenance. Court below awarded only an amount of Rs.700/- per mensem - past and future, though the claimants had claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. Future maintenance, it is seen was awarded only for a period of one year. That direction is not challenged by the claimants. Past maintenance was awarded for a period of 35 months.
4. Both sides have come up before us to assail the impugned order. Claimants/daughters contend that the quantum of maintenance awarded is painfully and perversely low and inadequate. The father/respondent on the contrary contends that the amounts awarded as maintenance is excessive.
5. The claimants, it is found, are adult major women aged 18 years and 21 years. They asserted that they are not employed and there is no better evidence to show that they are not unemployed. Court below did not accept the evidence of RWs Mat.A.Nos.183 & 719/09 -3- 1 to 3 about the alleged employment of the claimants. We find no reason to disagree with the conclusion of the court below on that aspect.
6. Virtually, the only point that survives in both these appeals is whether the quantum of maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs.700/- per mensem does warrant interference or not. Going by the needs of the claimants/daughters aged 18 years and 21 years, we have no hesitation to agree that the quantum of maintenance awarded is painfully low. The amount of Rs.700/- is hardly sufficient for them to keep body and soul together in these days of high cost of living index.
7. We shall look at the quantum from the point of view of the respondent/father. Evidence indicates that he has three wives in existence. His willingness to continue to marry women must afford this Court an indication about his own assessment of his financial affluence. It would be idle for the Court to assume that a person would choose to voluntarily embrace the responsibilities of further marriages and parenthood if he in his own assessment does not have the financial ability to meet such commitments. We have further evidence to show that in a family Mat.A.Nos.183 & 719/09 -4- partition, he was allotted 56 cents of land. We have indications to show that he was admittedly working and earning amounts. He is alleged to be a real estate broker. It is also alleged that he takes mango gardens on lease and exports mangoes. It is not disputed that he was having such a business earlier. However, he contends that he is without any employment now. On broad probabilities that contention was rightly rejected by the court below.
8. We have no authentic and precise evidence available about the quantum of monthly income of the respondent/father. But reasonable inferences are perfectly permissible. We are in these circumstances satisfied that on the materials available, the quantum of maintenance awarded is inadequate and insufficient. We are of the view that the claimants/daughters are entitled for past maintenance and future maintenance for one year (which alone is awarded and against which no challenge is raised) at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per mensem. Such direction, we are satisfied, shall advance the interests of justice.
9. In the result:
(a) Mat.a.No.183/09 is dismissed. Mat.A.Nos.183 & 719/09 -5-
(b) Mat.A.No.719/09 is allowed. The impugned order is modified. Past and future maintenance shall be payable at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per mensem for the periods awarded by the court below.
(c) The amounts in deposit shall forthwith be released to the claimants.
(d) The prayer for lifting of attachment shall be considered by the court below after the decree is satisfied.
R.BASANT, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn