V.K.Kishorekumar Vs. Rajna

V.K.Kishorekumar vs Rajna

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 23, 2014

~6 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1123738

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1123738
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K.Harilal
Decided On: Jan 23, 2014
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

V.K.Kishorekumar

Respondent

Rajna

Excerpt

.....along with rp(fc) 13/2014, the court on the same day passed the following: stu k.harilal, j.= = = = = = = = = = = r.p.(f.c)nos. 12 & 13 of 2014 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = dated this the 23rd day of january, 2014 c o m m o n order the revision petitioner is the respondent in c.m.p.no.108 of 2012 and the petitioner in c.m.p.no.364 of 2012 in m.c.no.125 of 2006 on the files of the family court, vatakara. the above c.m.ps were disposed by a common order dated 18th april, 2013 and the order passed in c.m.p.no.108 of 2012 is under challenge in the r.p(fc) no.12/2014 and order passed in c.m.p.no.364/2012 is under challenge in r.p.(fc) no.13/2014.2. c.m.p.no.108 of 2012 was filed by the respondents 1 and 2, who are the wife and son of the revision petitioner. according to them, in the earlier m.c. 125 of 2006 filed by them, the revision petitioner was ordered to pay maintenance allowance @ rs.1,000/- to the 1st respondent and rs.500/- to the 2nd respondent. c.m.p.no.364/12 was filed by the revision petitioner herein seeking an order cancelling the order of maintenance passed earlier in r.p.(f.c)nos. 12 & 13 of 2014 2 m.c.no.125/2006.3. it is the case of the respondents that the maintenance allowance which is being received by them is not sufficient to meet the increased day to day living expenses and also the educational expenses of the 2nd respondent. the value of essential commodities have been increasing day by day and there is a steep hike in living index after 2006. the 2nd respondent is now studying in third standard in a private school by name sree sathyasai vidya peedam and rs.1,000/- is required as tuition fee for each term. so, rs.3,000/- is required as tuition fee alone. considerable amount is required for educational expenses ie., conveyance, uniform and purchase of books etc. hence, they prayed for an order directing the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance @ 3,000/- each but the court below directed the revision.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE23D DAY OF JANUARY20143RD MAGHA, 1935 RPFC.No. 12 of 2014 () ----------------------- C.M.P.NO.108/2012 IN M.C1252006 of FAMILY COURT, VADAKARA DATED1804-2013 REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------- V.K.KISHOREKUMAR S/O.KANNAN, VATTAKKANDY, SOUPARNIKA KEEZHARIYUR P.O., KOYILANDY. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS: ---------------------------- 1. RAJNA D/O.PALOLI CHANDUKUTTY, PALOLY HOUSE, MOODADI AMSOM VELLARAKKADA DESOM, P.O.MOODADI, KOYILANDI TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

2. PRAFUL GYAN DARSHAN, S/O.KISHOREKUMAR, PALOLY HOUSE, MOODADI AMSOM VELLARAKKADA DESOM, P.O.MOODADI, KOYILANDI TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.(MINOR), REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN1T RESPONDENT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2301-2014 along with RP(FC) 13/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: stu K.HARILAL, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C)Nos. 12 & 13 of 2014 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2014 C O M M O N ORDER

The revision petitioner is the respondent in C.M.P.No.108 of 2012 and the petitioner in C.M.P.No.364 of 2012 in M.C.No.125 of 2006 on the files of the Family Court, Vatakara. The above C.M.Ps were disposed by a common order dated 18th April, 2013 and the order passed in C.M.P.No.108 of 2012 is under challenge in the R.P(FC) No.12/2014 and order passed in C.M.P.No.364/2012 is under challenge in R.P.(FC) No.13/2014.

2. C.M.P.No.108 of 2012 was filed by the respondents 1 and 2, who are the wife and son of the revision petitioner. According to them, in the earlier M.C. 125 of 2006 filed by them, the revision petitioner was ordered to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs.1,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.500/- to the 2nd respondent. C.M.P.No.364/12 was filed by the revision petitioner herein seeking an order cancelling the order of maintenance passed earlier in R.P.(F.C)Nos. 12 & 13 of 2014 2 M.C.No.125/2006.

3. It is the case of the respondents that the maintenance allowance which is being received by them is not sufficient to meet the increased day to day living expenses and also the educational expenses of the 2nd respondent. The value of essential commodities have been increasing day by day and there is a steep hike in living index after 2006. The 2nd respondent is now studying in third standard in a private school by name Sree Sathyasai Vidya Peedam and Rs.1,000/- is required as tuition fee for each term. So, Rs.3,000/- is required as tuition fee alone. Considerable amount is required for educational expenses ie., conveyance, uniform and purchase of books etc. Hence, they prayed for an order directing the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance @ 3,000/- each but the court below directed the revision petitioner to pay maintenance allowance @ 2,000/- each per month to the respondents. This order is under challenge in this revision petition.

4. The revision petitioner contended that he too also is affected by the enhancement of prices of commodities. He R.P.(F.C)Nos. 12 & 13 of 2014 3 has no income to pay maintenance allowance at the enhanced rate. He has filed C.M.P.No.364 of 2012 seeking cancellation of maintenance amount ordered to be paid to the 1st respondent. According to him, the 1st respondent is employed in an institution by name Jayasurya and earning a monthly income of 8,000/- per month. The revision petitioner and his mother are suffering from various diseases and he finds it very difficult to meet his both ends with the meagre income which is deriving from his tuition classes. The averments in C.M.P.No.364/2012 are more or less similar to that of averments in the counter statement filed in C.M.P.No.108/2012.

5. The short questions that arise for consideration are, (i) Is the determination of the enhanced quantum of maintenance, proper and justifiable (ii) Whether the dismissal of C.M.P.No.364/2012 can be justified 6. Since the questions raised above are interlinked, they can be considered together. Admittedly, in the earlier M.C.125 of 2006, the revision petitioner was ordered to pay R.P.(F.C)Nos. 12 & 13 of 2014 4 maintenance allowance @ Rs.1,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.500/- to the 2nd respondent and now 7 years have been elapsed. According to the respondents, they are unable to meet the day to day living expenses by the amount which is being received as maintenance allowance. The 2nd respondent is studying in third standard and 3,000/- per year is required as tuition fee. In addition to that a considerable amount is required for purchase of books, uniform and transportation etc.

7. Steep hike in the living index is a universal phenomenon, which does not require any proof or evidence. But, at the same time, there is a proportionate increase in the per capita income of every person who is ready and willing to work. It is admitted that the revision petitioner is conducting tuition classes. He has no case that he is physically disabled or unhealthy or incapacitated to do work. Similarly, there is no evidence to show that after 2006 there is a diminution in the earning capacity of the revision petitioner. Though he contended that the 1st respondent is employed in a computer firm by name, Jayasurya and is getting `8,000/- per month, R.P.(F.C)Nos. 12 & 13 of 2014 5 absolutely there is no evidence to substantiate the said contention. In the above view, certainly the respondents are entitled to get enhanced maintenance allowance from the revision petitioner.

8. Having regard to the standard of life and hike in living index and also the educational expenses of the 2nd respondent, the enhanced amount determined by the court below is just and proper and does not call for any interference under the revisional jurisdiction.

9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the revision petitioner is unable to pay the entire arrear in lump sum as he is suffering from financial difficulties. He wants some time to pay arrear. The learned counsel sought for permission to pay the entire arrear in instalments.

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision petitioner is given four months time to pay the entire arrear provided that half of the amount shall be deposited within 2 months and the balance shall be deposited within the next 2 months. In the event of failure to pay the R.P.(F.C)Nos. 12 & 13 of 2014 6 first instalment within the stipulated time, this instalment facility will automatically stand vacated and the Family Court will be free to enforce realisation of the entire arrear in lump sum. These Revision Petitions are dismissed as above. (K.HARILAL, JUDGE) stu/okb. //True copy// P.A to Judge

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties V.K.Kishorekumar vs Rajna Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K.Harilal

Education Having regard to private school family court More or less Every person no evidence