IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 28165 of 2006(S)
1. K.V.SUMEERA, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. SANTHA,
... Petitioner
2. AMRITHA (MINOR), AGED 9 YEARS,
3. ATHIRA (MINOR),
Vs
1. T.V.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. SANKUNNI VARIYAR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :31/10/2006
O R D E R
(M.RAMACHANDRAN & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ)
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 28165 of 2006-S
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of October, 2006
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran, J:
An order dated 18-10-2006 in E.A.No.21/06 in
E.P.No.75 of 2005, filed in O.P.No.502 of 2004 before the
Family Court, Malappuram, is subjected to challenge at the
instance of the wife and children of the respondent herein,
on a plea that the Family Court had overlooked certain
relevant material aspects and there is a prima facie error in
the order.
2. The wife and children (Petitioners herein) had
been directed to be paid maintenance, at the rate of
Rs.750/-, 650/- and 600/- (a total amount of Rs.2000/-), as
coming from the respondent. There was default in
payments. The petitioners herein had also come to notice
that there were hectic attempts to alienate certain
properties at the instance of the respondent, which would
have landed them in trouble. So much so an attachment had
been brought at their instance.
[WPC No.28165 of 2006] -2-
3. Thereupon, respondent had filed a petition before
the Family Court pointing out that substantial amounts were
liable to be blocked and the order has to be appropriately
varied. An order had been passed earlier. Feeling aggrieved
thereby, the petitioners herein had filed W.P.(C).No.22055 of
2006 and the matter was remitted back to the Family Court
for a fresh consideration, by judgment dated 31-08-2006. The
present orders had been passed thereafter.
4. Mr.K.Ramachandran, appearing for the petitioners,
submits that the court had overlooked certain vital aspects,
viz., that what is payable because of the order passed is
Rs.1000/- per month, which comes as interest from a deposit
of Rs.2,00,000/- in a Nationalised Bank. He points out that
when the maintenance amount came to Rs.2000/-, the
principal amount was inadequate and the direction for
payment of Rs.1000/- every month operates against the earlier
orders.
5. Mr.Chandrasekhar, appearing for the respondent,
submits that there is, of course, an oversight, but that is no
reason to vary the order, in any substantial manner. He
[WPC No.28165 of 2006] -3-
further submits that he had instructions to submit that
another amount of Rs.1,20,000/- also will be deposited along
with the deposit of Rs.2 lakhs. He submits that thereby the
wife and children will be able to get Rs.2000/- per mensem.
6. Mr.Ramachandran points out that there is every
possibility for obtaining an enhancement in the maintenance
amount in future, at least as far as the children are concerned,
and sufficient amounts are liable to be deposited, so that it
may be possible for the petitioners to claim enhancement
without unduly troubling the respondent/husband, and there is
an element of security if such a course is followed.
7. Although the suggestion is opposed by
Mr.Chandrasekhar, we feel that as the respondent/ husband
has been gracious enough to offer a deposit Rs.3.2 lakhs, it
may be more appropriate that he deposits Rs.3.5 lakhs in total
so that the petitioners will be able to draw Rs.2000/- per
month from the interest that accrues. Of course there will be
a slight surplus, but that is not sufficient to cause an
unreasonable burden, and may help the cause of the parties in
the long run.
[WPC No.28165 of 2006] -4-
8. In the aforesaid circumstances, we modify the
order dated 18-10-2006 and the respondent is to make a total
amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs in deposit. Respondent submits that
up to date arrears have been already paid. Petitioners will be
entitled to draw Rs.2000/- per month towards the maintenance
amount out of the interest that is to accrue on such deposit.
On such deposit, the attachment already ordered will stand
released, so that it may be possible for the respondent to deal
with the properties at his discretion. We do not think any
further directions are called for at this juncture.
9. With this modification, Ext.P3 will stand confirmed.
The writ petition is disposed of, as above.
(M.RAMACHANDRAN)
JUDGE
(K.T.SANKARAN)
JUDGE
mks/