Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1943 RPFC NO. 286 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.09.2021 IN M.C.NO.32/2018 OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: PRASHOB, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.PRAKASAN, KARUKAYIL HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA POST, KOOTTAYI, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 562. BY ADV.SRI.JOSEPH M.P. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: PRAKASAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. KUMAR, KARUKAYIL HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA POST, KOOTTAYI, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 562. BY ADVS.SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY SMT.K.VIJINA THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.03.2022, ALONG WITH RPFC.64/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1943 RPFC NO. 64 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.09.2021 IN M.C.NO.32/2018 OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER: PRAKASAN, S/O KUMAR, AGED 63 YEARS KARUKAYIL HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA POST, KOOTTAYI, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 562. BY ADVS. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY SRI.ARUL MURALIDHARAN SMT.K.VIJINA
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: PRASHOB, S/O PRAKASAN, AGED 29 YEARS, KARUKAYIL HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA POST, KOOTTAYI, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 562. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.03.2022, ALONG WITH RPFC.286/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Dated this the 16th day of March, 2022 These revisions are originated from an order passed by Family Court, Tirur (for short ‘the court below’) on 15.09.2021 in M.C.No.32/2018.
2. By the order, the court below has directed the
revision petitioner in RP(FC) No.286/2021 to pay monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.4,500/- to the respondent herein who is the revision petitioner in RP(FC) No.64/2022. The grievance of the revision petitioner in RP(FC) No.286/2021 was that the monthly maintenance allowance was ordered in favour of a man who has deserted him sufficiently earlier in point of time. His father has also married another lady and has a son aged 12 years in that wedlock. According to him his father is maintaining a second family consisting of his wife and child and therefore cannot be said to be unable to maintain himself. According to him, the court below failed to appreciate
the above factums while finding him unable to maintain himself and ordering monthly maintenance allowance in his favour.
3. In RP(FC) No.64/2022, the revision petitioner is the
father and his grievance was that Rs.4,500/- stands ordered in his favour by the order assailed is on the lower side and enhancement is required in the interest of justice.
4. The parties to the above revisions are referred to hereunder as the petitioner and the respondent in accordance with their status in M.C.No.32/2018.
5. This Court has noticed that both parties adduced
evidence before the court below. The main ground taken by the petitioner before the court below was that he is aged 60 years and suffering from various ailments and therefore requires to get a reasonable sum as monthly maintenance allowance from the respondent. According to him, the respondent is employed as accountant in a jewellery namely ‘Pavan Gold’ at Tirur and has Rs.25,000/- as monthly income, but, he refused to maintain him.
6. The contention of the respondent was that the father
deserted him fifteen years back and is also maintaining a second family consisting of his new wife and a son born in that wedlock. Petitioner marked Exts.P1 to P10 in evidence which are medical documents wherefrom his ailments and treatment undergone for that, are established.
7. The contention of the respondent was that the petitioner deserted himself, his sisters and mother 15 years back and married secondly and is living with his second wife and a
child aged 12 years. According to him, his mother filed a maintenance case against him and in that, monthly maintenance allowance was ordered by the court in her favour. According to him, the petitioner out of his grudge that the M.C on hand is
filed, seeking monthly maintenance allowance for him. According to him, the petitioner is having sufficient income and is able to maintain not only himself, but also his second family and therefore, is not entitled to get monthly maintenance allowance from him. According to him he was getting only Rs.10,909/- as monthly income from ‘Pavan Gold’ and has to maintain his sisters and mother. Respondent examined himself
as RW1 and marked Exts.R1 to R4.
8. The claim of the petitioner that he is the father and is suffering from ailments are not disputed by the respondent. According to the respondent, petitioner is having bank balance
and assets. According to him, the petitioner is living with his second wife and son. The factum was not neither admitted by the petitioner nor was established through evidence by the respondent. The respondent has no case that the petitioner was working and earning any income. No documents are forthcoming in evidence to establish the contention of respondent that the petitioner is having sufficient money in accounts maintained by him with any banks, investments in Fixed Deposit or income
from properties held by him. Exts.P1 to P8 satisfactorily convince this Court that he is suffering from ailments of old age and is undergoing treatment for that. Therefore, the respondent failed to controvert the evidence tendered by the petitioner that he was unable to maintain himself for want of any income. Ext.R4 made available in evidence also discloses that the respondent is having a monthly income or Rs.15,000/-. One thing is made clear that the mother was also not maintained by
the respondent and therefore, she was constrained to approach the Family Court to obtain monthly maintenance allowance to sustain herself. Therefore, this Court is constrained to take a view that it was respondent who abandoned his father and refused him maintenance.
9. In the light of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is convinced that the petitioner was unable to maintain himself in his old age and needs money for his sustenance as
well as treatment. It has been stated by the respondent that now he is compelled by an order passed by the court below to pay monthly maintenance allowance to his mother. His monthly income from his job alone is proved by Ext.R4 as Rs.15,000/-. His other sources of income are not disclosed by him by filing an affidavit as directed by the Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another [2020 (6) KHC 1]. He was also not proved as a man devoid of health. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to set aside the order directing payment of monthly maintenance
allowance at the rate of Rs.4,500/- to the petitioner. This Court is not inclined to enhance the monthly maintenance allowance from Rs.4,500/- as demanded by the petitioner in R.P(F.C) No.64/2022 in the circumstances stand established by evidence. RP(FC) Nos.286/2021 and 64/2022 fail for the reasons, therefore are dismissed. Sd/- MARY JOSEPH JUDGE NAB