Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Santhosh Kumar vs Jayakumari

Santhosh Kumar vs Jayakumari

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jun 06, 2024
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1312019

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
RPFC/78/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Santhosh Kumar

Respondent

Jayakumari

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr. justice p.somarajan thursday, the 6th day of june 2024 / 16th jyaishta, 1946 against the order dated 13.11.2023 in mc no.102 of 2023 of family court, punalur revision petitioner/respondent: santhosh kumar, aged 39 years, s/o. ponnuswami, vadakkevila vasantha bhavan, balaramapuram, pallichal village, neyyattinkara taluk, thiruvananthapuram, pin - 695501 by advs. ramesh .p bleimy t.jose respondents/petitioners:1 jayakumari, aged 34 years, d/o. adinam chettiyar, jayan mandiram, ottakkal p.o., thenmala village, pathanapuram taluk, kollam, pin - 2 anjana, aged 8 years, her mother, jayakumari, aged 34 years, d/o. adinam 3 abhirami, aged 4 years, her mother jayakumari, aged 34 years, d/o. adinam by adv resmi nandanan this rev.petition(family court) having come up for admission on 06.06.2024, the court on the same day delivered the following:orderthe husband came up against the order of maintenance granted by the family court to the wife and two children at the rate of rs.3000/- per month. the husband is an able-bodied man. ext.b14 disability certificate was produced before the trial court showing that he is suffering from bipolar disorder. by its very nature, bipolar disorder stands for an ailment, that would occur occasionally and may not affect the intellectual capacity of the person concerned or his capacity to earn livelihood. necessarily, he would stand bound by the liability to maintain his wife and two children. the fact that he entered into a marriage with the wife and there are two children in the wedlock would sufficiently show what is behind it. the amount ordered by the family court is the bare minimum, hardly sufficient to meet both the ends together and not sufficient to lead a dignified life. as such, the rp(f.c) fails, and is dismissed. sd/- p.somarajan judge msp

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.11.2023 IN MC NO.102 OF 2023 OF FAMILY COURT, PUNALUR REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. PONNUSWAMI, VADAKKEVILA VASANTHA BHAVAN, BALARAMAPURAM, PALLICHAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695501 BY ADVS. RAMESH .P BLEIMY T.JOSE RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

1 JAYAKUMARI, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O. ADINAM CHETTIYAR, JAYAN MANDIRAM, OTTAKKAL P.O., THENMALA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM, PIN - 2 ANJANA, AGED 8 YEARS, HER MOTHER, JAYAKUMARI, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O. ADINAM 3 ABHIRAMI, AGED 4 YEARS, HER MOTHER JAYAKUMARI, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O. ADINAM BY ADV RESMI NANDANAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The husband came up against the order of maintenance granted by the Family Court to the wife and two children at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month. The husband is an able-bodied man. Ext.B14 disability certificate was produced before the trial court showing that he is suffering from bipolar disorder. By its very nature, bipolar disorder stands for an ailment, that would occur occasionally and may not affect the intellectual capacity of the person concerned or his capacity to earn livelihood. Necessarily, he would stand bound by the liability to maintain his wife and two children. The fact that he entered into a marriage with the wife and there are two children in the wedlock would sufficiently show what is behind it. The amount ordered by the Family Court is the bare minimum, hardly sufficient to meet both the ends together and not sufficient to lead a dignified life. As such, the RP(F.C) fails, and is dismissed. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial