Radhakrishnan vs Reena

Radhakrishnan vs REENA

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided May 31, 2023

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1367733

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/1367733
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice V.G.Arun
Decided On: May 31, 2023
Case Number: RPFC/584/2017

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Radhakrishnan

Respondent

REENA

Excerpt

.....from various ailments and was unable to work. further, the establishment in which the petitioner was working had been closed down, leaving him jobless. an attempt was also made to show that the wife is working in a textile shop and has insufficient income to maintain herself and the children. the said attempt was also not properly appreciated by the family court.3.learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, absolutely no interference is warranted with the meager amount of maintenance awarded by the family court. it is contended that if there is a change of circumstance warranting reduction of the maintenance allowance, the petitioner should approach the family court under section 127 cr.p.c.4. inspite of the assertive submissions put-forth by thelearned counsel for the petitioner, i am not inclined to interfere with the order of the family court, as meagre amounts are ordered to be paid. it has come out from the arguments that the children (r2 and r3) have attained majority. as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, if there is a change of circumstance warranting reduction of the maintenance allowance, it is always open for the petitioner to approach the family court and produce sufficient evidence in that regard.the revision petition is hence dismissed, reserving the petitioner’s right to approach the family court, if so warranted. sd/- v.g arun judge sj

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2023 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1945 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 10/2014 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD REVISION PETITIONER/S: RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 47 YEARS AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. LATE PONNU, RESIDING AT ATHIKUZHI VADAKKE VEETTIL, CHITTUR VILLAGE & TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 101. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA RESPONDENT/S: 1 REENA AGED 40 YEARS AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, THAMBATTIYAR MADOM, PON NAGARAM, ADIVARAM VILLAGE, PAZHANI THALUK. 2 VISHNUJITH AGED 16 YEARS AGED 16 YEARS, S/O. REENA, THAMBATTIYAR MADOM, PON 3 VISWAJITH AGED 13 YEARS AGED 13 YEARS, S/O. REENA, THAMBATTIYAR MADOM, PON SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY SMT.K.VIJINA THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Dated this the 31st day of May, 2023 The respondents, who are the wife and children of the petitioner had initially approached the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C No. 281/2010, seeking maintenance allowance. The M.C was allowed directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate Rs.1500 to the 1 st respondent

and Rs. 1000/- each to respondents 2 and 3. Later the respondents filed M.C no. 10/2014 under Section 127 Cr.P.C, seeking enhancement of maintenance allowance. Therein, the impugned order was passed, directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the Rs.3000/- to the 1st respondent, Rs.2000/- to the 2nd respondent and Rs.1500/- to the 3rd respondent respectively.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the family court committed gross illegality in enhancing the

maintenance allowance, despite the petitioner having produced the document to show that he was suffering from various ailments and was unable to work. Further, the establishment in which the petitioner was working had been closed down, leaving him jobless. An attempt was also made to show that the wife is working in a textile shop and has insufficient income to maintain herself and the children. The said attempt was also not properly appreciated by the Family Court.

3.Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, absolutely no interference is warranted with the meager amount of maintenance awarded by the Family Court. It is contended that if there is a change of circumstance warranting reduction of the maintenance allowance, the petitioner should approach the Family Court under Section 127 Cr.P.C.

4. Inspite of the assertive submissions put-forth by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the Family Court, as meagre amounts are ordered to be paid. It has come out from the arguments that the children (R2 and R3) have attained majority. As submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, if there is a change of circumstance warranting reduction of the maintenance allowance, it is always open for the petitioner to approach the Family Court and produce sufficient evidence in that regard.

The revision petition is hence dismissed, reserving the petitioner’s right to approach the Family Court, if so warranted. Sd/- V.G ARUN JUDGE SJ

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties Radhakrishnan vs REENA Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice V.G.Arun