Kerala High Court
Fathimasanam vs Kasim on 11 January, 2012
Author: K. Harilal
Bench: K.Harilal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/20TH BHADRA, 1935
RPFC.No. 59 of 2012 ()
-----------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN M.C.NO. 375/2010 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD
DATED 11-01-2012
PETITIONER/ PETITIONER NO.2 IN M.C. :
---------------------------------------
FATHIMASANAM,
AGED 5 YEARS (MINOR), D/O.KASIM, VEETIKKAD VEEDU,
PALLIKURUP, KARAKURUSSI, MANNARKKAD TALUK,
MINOR PETITIONER. REP. BY GUARDIAN MOTHER NUSRATH,
D/O.VALLAPUZHA VEERANKUTTY, THENKARA AMSOM DESOM,
MANNARKKAD TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT :
--------------------------
KASIM,
S/O.SAIDALAVI, VEETTIKKAD VEEDU, PALLIKURUP,
KARAKURUSSI P.O., MANNARKKAD, NOW RESIDING AT V.K.62026,
TECHNICIAN PREG L.P.SC, VALIAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR
THIS REV.PETITION (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 11-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RKM
K. HARILAL, J.
----------------------
R.P.(F.C.)No.59 of 2012
--------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2013
ORDER
The Petitioner is the 2nd petitioner in M.C.No.375 of 2010 on the files of Family Court, Palakkad. The respondent is the father of the petitioner herein. The above petition was filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance allowance. The 1st petitioner in the M.C. was wife of the respondent. But she has not sought for maintenance allowance on the reason that another M.C. under the Muslim Women(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was pending before the Magistrate's court. The Petitioner is aged 5 years at the time of filing the maintenance case. The respondent pronounced Talaq against the mother of the Petitioner. According to the petitioner the respondent is not providing any maintenance to her from 18/04/2010 onwards. The respondent is working at ISRO as a technician and is R.P.(F.C.)No.59 of 2012 2 getting monthly salary of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) He has got two acres of rubber estate at Karakurussy as family property and is getting Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) per month as income out of it. He has also 5 cents of property at Thiruvananthapuram valued more than Rs.20 lakhs. The petitioner's mother has no job or income . The mother is depending upon her father.
2. The respondent filed objection admitting the paternity of the child and denying the income averred in the petition. He admitted that he is working as technician at ISRO but he is not getting 20,000/- as claimed by the Petitioner. Presently he is getting Rs.18,439/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Nine only). He has to look after his aged mother and he had recoveries of two loans taken for the treatment of his mother; but at the same time he expressed his willingness to pay reasonable amount to petitioner as maintenance allowance. Though the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.10,000/- as monthly maintenance R.P.(F.C.)No.59 of 2012 3 allowance, the court below directed the respondent to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs.2000/- per month.
3. The only question to be considered is whether the amount quantified by the court below as monthly maintenance allowance is justifiable? Ext.X1 salary statement produced by the respondent shows that he is getting Rs.18,439/- as gross and his net pay is Rs.10,228/-. At the time of filing the M.C. the petitioner was studying at 1st standard and now three years have been elapsed. The respondent is employed in a Central Government Public Sector Company as technician. The Petitioner has a right to live with the standard of life on a par with standard of life of the respondent. Having regard to the educational expenses of the petitioner who is studying in a school at Thiruvananthapuram, I am of the opinion that Rs.500/- is not sufficient to meet her educational expenses. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to get a little enhancement in the amount, so as to meet her educational expenses. Having regard to the fact that he is well employed in a Central Government Public R.P.(F.C.)No.59 of 2012 4 Sector Company he has income and whereby liable to provide better facilities for the education of his child.
4. Therefore, in modification of the order passed by the court below the respondent is directed to pay monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred only) per month. Enhancement will come into operation prospectively.
This Revision Petition is allowed.
Sd/-K.HARILAL JUDGE MJL