Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1942 RPFC.No.518 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC No.150/2015 DATED 14-06-2016 OF FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKARA REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: BINOY AGED 48 YEARS, S/O VIDYADHARAN, K.S.R.T.C, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD SMT.ANITHA M.N. (EKM) RESPONDENTS 1 & 2/PETITIONERS 1 & 2: 1 LEKHA.N AGED 42 YEARS, W/O BINOY, PUTHENVEETTIL, PUTHIYAVILA, PATTOLI MARKET P.O, ARTTUPUZHA VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM. 2 THAMBURU AGED 8 YEARS, D/O LEKHA, PUTHENVEETTIL, PUTHIYAVILA, PATTOLI MARKET P.O, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.BINDU SUKUMARAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC.No.518/2016 2
ORDER
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2020
In the revision on hand a challenge is raised against an order
passed by Family Court, Mavelikara on 14.06.2016 in M.C No.150/2015 directing the respondent to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,500/- to the minor 2nd petitioner, a child born to him in his wedlock. The challenge is mainly based on the quantum of maintenance ordered by the Family Court.
2. For the sake of clarity, the parties to the revision on hand will be referred to hereinafter as the respondent and the petitioners in accordance with their status in the M.C before the Family Court.
3. The contention of Sri. C.Rasheed, the learned counsel for
the respondent was that the Family Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective while fixing Rs.3,500/- as maintenance to the 2nd petitioner who was only minor at the relevant time. According to him, despite the oral evidence tendered by the 1st petitioner as PW1 that the respondent was an Empanelled
RPFC.No.518/2016 3
Conductor in K.S.R.T.C and was getting Rs.30,000/- as monthly salary, independent evidence was not adduced by him to substantiate the same. According to him, the respondent though admittedly was working as an Empanelled Conductor in K.S.R.T.C has stoutly disputed the averment of the 1st petitioner that he was getting Rs.30,000/- monthly. Therefore, the 1st petitioner must have
established the factum through cogent materials. The learned counsel has drawn this Court's attention to the factum that the Family Curt has blindly relied on the sole oral evidence tendered by PW1 to hold that the respondent was having salary of Rs.30,000/- from his job as an Empanelled Conductor in K.S.R.T.C and therefore is able to pay Rs.3,500/- to the 2 nd petitioner as monthly
maintenance. According to him, the Family Court is highly unjustified in finding so and issuing direction to the respondent to pay maintenance at the rate as above. According to him, the quantum fixed by the impugned order requires modification by interference.
4. Going by the discussions made by the Family Court in the impugned order with reference to the contentions raised by the respondent in the counter statement filed in the M.C, it is pertinent RPFC.No.518/2016 4
to note that his employment as an Empanelled Conductor in K.S.R.T.C is admitted by him. His dispute was only with respect to the income allegedly earned by him monthly. According to him, he was getting only a meagre sum as salary from K.S.R.T.C. but he failed to state the actual sum received by him. It being a factum within his knowledge, he is bound to produce cogent materials which would easily be procured by him from K.S.R.T.C. But, rather than opting to prove that, he confined his contention stating that he was getting only a meagre sum and therefore, is incapable to pay maintenance to the 2nd petitioner.
5. Evidence in the M.C was confined solely to the oral
evidence tendered by the 1st petitioner as PW1. She has stated that the respondent was getting Rs.30,000/- monthly as salary from his job as an Empanelled Conductor in K.S.R.T.C. The said oral evidence was not controverted. The respondent did not even mount the box to swear the contentions taken by him in his counter statement. The exact income earned by him is also not proved. When the evidence tendered by PW1, regarding the monthly income of the respondent stands uncontroverted, this court did not see any error in the Family Court relying on it and fixing Rs.3,500/- as the monthly maintenance payable to the 2nd petitioner whose paternity is admitted by him. The sum fixed
RPFC.No.518/2016 5 being reasonable, this Court is hesitant to interfere with. In the result, R.P.(F.C) stands dismissed and the order under challenge is maintained. Sd/- MARY JOSEPH JUDGE JJ