Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1945 RPFC NO. 41 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.10.2015 IN MC NO.316/2014 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: M.V. MANOHARAN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.KANNAN, MOOLAKKARAN HOUSE, RESIDING NEAR MEKKON COMPANY, PILATHARA, P.O.VILAYANKODE, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.JOSE ANTONY RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 RINCY ROBERT, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.ROBERT, METTILDA HOUSE, EMBETTE, PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., KADANNAPPALLI AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2 MANISHA MONOHARANMINOR, D/O.MANOHARAN, AGED 15 YEARS(MINOR), REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER, THE 1ST RESPONDENT RINCY ROBERT, D/O.ROBERT, AGED 30 YEARS, METTILDA HOUSE, EMBETTE, PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE, KADANNAPPALLI AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3 ABHISHEK MANOHARAN, S/O.MANOHARAN, AGED 8 YEARS(MINOR), REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER, THE 1ST RESPONDENT RINCY ROBERT, -:2:-
D/O.ROBERT, AGED 30 YEARS, METTILDA HOUSE, EMBETTE, PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE, KADANNAPPALLI AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL P.S.BINU THIS REV. PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -:3:- Dated this the 1st day of November,2023
ORDER
The revision petition is filed assailing the order
passed in M.C.No.316/2014 of the Family Court, Kannur, directing the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.3,000/- & Rs.4,000/-, respectively, to the respondents 2 & 3 - his children - from the date of application(15.07.2014). The revision petitioner was the respondent and the respondents were the petitioners before the Family Court. Brief facts:
2. The respondents had filed the above
application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (‘Code’, for the sake of brevity) asserting that the first respondent was living with the revision petitioner and the respondents 2 & 3 were born in the relationship. On 19.01.2011, the revision -:4:- petitioner left the respondents in the parental home of the first respondent. Subsequently, there were matrimonial proceedings between the parties, which was settled with the intervention of mediators and friends. However, again the revision petitioner ill-treated the first respondent and she was compelled to file O.P.No.438/2013 before the Family Court. The original petition was allowed on 05.09.2013. Since 19.01.2011, the revision petitioner has refused to maintain the respondents. The respondents 2 & 3 are pursuing their education. The revision petitioner has his own business and is earning a monthly income of Rs.40,000/-. He is also getting Rs.25,000/- as agricultural income. The respondents 1 & 3 require a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.10,000/- each and the second respondent requires Rs.5,000/-. Hence, the application.
3. The revision petitioner filed a written -:5:- objection, interalia, refuting the allegations in the application. He admitted that he married the first respondent under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Nonetheless, the marriage was dissolved by an ex-parte divorce decree. The first respondent is working as a saleswoman in a textile shop and getting
a monthly salary of Rs.6,500/-. She is also a dance teacher. The revision petitioner hails from a financially backward family and has no landed properties. He is a goods auto rickshaw driver and is earning a monthly income of only Rs.5,000/-. He has to maintain his aged parents. Hence, the application may be dismissed.
4. In the trial, the first respondent was examined as PW 1 and Exts P1 & P2 were marked in evidence. The revision petitioner was examined as RW 1 and he marked Ext R1 on his side.
5. The Family Court, after analysing pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned order, -:6:-
disallowed monthly maintenance allowance to the first respondent; but directed the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance to the respondents 2 & 3 @ Rs.3,000/- & Rs.4,000/- respectively.
6. It is assailing by the said order; the revision petition is filed.
7. Heard; Sri.O.V. Maniprasad, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri. Zubair Pulikkool, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that, subsequent to the filing of the revision petition, the second respondent
had attained majority. Immediately, the revision petitioner filed an application under Section 127 of the Code, to cancel the impugned order passed against the second respondent. The application has been allowed and revision petitioner’s liability to maintain the -:7:- second respondent has come to an end. Thus, the revision petitioner’s challenge is confined as against the third respondent.
9. The revision petitioner admits the paternity of the second and third respondents. He also does not dispute the fact that he is a goods auto rickshaw driver.
10. It is on record that the third respondent is suffering from epilepsy, which is proved by Ext P2 certificate. It is also on record that the third respondent requires Rs.3,000/- per month for his medical expenses.
11. The Family Court after analysing the
materials on record has found that the revision petitioner is earning Rs.800/- per day and, therefore, he is liable to pay the respondents 2 & 3 monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.7,000/-.
12. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (‘Code’ for short), was conceived to -:8:-
ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial sufferings of women and children, who are constrained to leave the matrimonial home for the reasons provided in Chapter IX of the Code, so that suitable arrangements can be made by the Courts to sustain them in their life ahead.
13. It is trite that an able bodied person is statutorily bound to maintain his wife and child, [read Anju Garg & Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 805]].
14. After bestowing my anxious consideration in
the matter, especially taking note of the fact that the revision petitioner is a goods auto rickshaw driver and he does not dispute the paternity of the respondents 2 &3, and the third respondent is a sickly child, I am of the definite view that the impugned order is reasonable and justifiable. I do not find any error
illegality or impropriety in the impugned order
-:9:- warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional powers under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1964. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed. Needless to mention, if the impugned order has already been cancelled as against the second respondent, then the revision petitioner’s liability to
maintain her comes to an end. Also, if the revision petitioner has deposited any amount, pursuant to the interim order of this Court, he will be entitled to adjustment of the deposited amount, while calculating the arrears of maintenance payable by him to the third respondent as per the impugned order. Sd/- C.S.DIAS,JUDGE DST/01.11.23 //True copy// P.A. To Judge