IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8447 of 2004(E)
1. PAUL MATHEW, MUNDACKAL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BHASKARAN S/O. ANANDAN, PULLATTU,
... Respondent
2. THOMAS S/O. PATHROSE, KOORAMKUNNEL
3. PATHROSE, MOORAMKUNNEL PUTHENPURA,
4. JOSE S/O. VARGHESE, PULIYAMPILLIL,
5. VINCENT S/O. MATHAI,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.PAUL KURIAKOSE
For Respondent :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.K.CHANDRASEKHARADAS(RETD. JUDGE)
Dated :23/07/2009
O R D E R
JUSTICE T.K.CHANDRASEKHARA DAS
(RETD.JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
&
SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR
(SENIOR ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
===============================
W.P.(C).No.8447 of 2004
===============================
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009
AWARD
Parties and their counsel are present. They have settled
the matter and produced the terms of compromise in writing.
The joint memo signed by both the parties shall form part of the
Award. An Award is passed as per the terms of the joint memo.
T.K.CHANDRASEKHARA DAS
(RETD.JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR
(SENIOR ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
dvs
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+Mat.Appeal.No. 560 of 2009()
#1. B.V.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
$1. REKHA, W/O.B.V.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
... Respondent
2. MEERA GOPAL,D/O.REKHA(MINOR),
3. REVATHI, D/O.REKHA,
! For Petitioner :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR
^ For Respondent :SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
*Coram
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
% Dated :24/07/2009
: O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
————————————————–
Mat.Appeal No.560 OF 2009
—————————————————–
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JULY, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Basant, J.
The appellant has come to this Court aggrieved by the
direction for payment of maintenance to his wife and two minor
children at the rate of Rs.1,000/- each per mensem(Total
Rs.3,000/- per mensem).
2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed.
Separate residence is also conceded. It is further admitted that
the parties have secured divorce. The court below directed
payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- per mensem for
a period of five years from the date of filing of the petition in
1999. Thereafter maintenance was ordered to be paid at the
rate of Rs.700/- per mensem each till the date of the impugned
order. From the date of the impugned order direction was issued
to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensem. There
was also a direction to return an amount of Rs.20,000/- which
the appellant had admittedly received from the respondent,
Mat.Appeal No.560/09 -2-
though the respondent had claimed that an amount of
Rs.50,000/- was paid.
3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned
order. What is the grievance? So far as the amount of
Rs.20,000/- is concerned, the court below relied on the admission
of the appellant that he had received the said amount of
Rs.20,000/-. No contention has been advanced before us
against the said finding of the Family Court.
4. The only contention raised before us is that the
quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. The claim was
filed as early as in 1999. The court below had realistically
awarded only lesser amounts for the earlier periods of time.
Amounts are awarded at the rate of Rs.400, Rs.700/- and
Rs.1,000/- per mensem for all the claimants for various periods.
5. Going by the needs of the claimants, by no stretch of
imagination, can it be held that the amount of maintenance fixed
at the rates shown above is excessive. The amount of Rs.1,000/-
per mensem is hardly sufficient for the claimants to keep body
and soul together. Judged from their requirements, the amount
Mat.Appeal No.560/09 -3-
awarded cannot hence be held to be excessive.
6. The learned counsel contends that the appellant has
only a monthly income of Rs.1,795/-. For this purpose, he relied
on a certificate which he received from Mannam Memmorial
Residential Higher Secondary School. The court below was not
prepared to accept that, that is the only monthly income of the
appellant. The court below took note of Exhibits A1 to A6 which
conveyed unmistakably that the appellant was having alternative
sources of income. He was a Musician and he was undertaking
programmes for various organisations and institutions. The court
below took note of his own claim in a notice issued through the
counsel that he had suffered loss exceeding Rs.3 lakhs on
account of the conduct of the wife, who obstructed his activities
as a Musician.
7. It is true that the wife was not able to produce specific
evidence about the quantum of income which the appellant
derives. But it would be puerile for a court to expect such
authentic documentary evidence in all cases. Exhibits A1 to A6
are the available documents which indicate the possible and
Mat.Appeal No.560/09 -4-
probable income of the appellant. It does not require the wisdom
of Solomon to conclude that the appellant was not living on the
meagre income of Rs.1,795/- which he was allegedly getting as
monthly income from one School. In any view of the matter,
according to us, the court below has committed no error or
indiscretion in assuming, in the light of the totality of inputs
available, that the husband, i.e., the appellant herein will be in a
position to pay monthly maintenance prospectively at the rate of
Rs.1,000/- per mensem to the three claimants. In any view of
the matter, in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction vested in us
under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, that decision does not
call for interference. The same appears to be fair, just and
reasonable to us. This Mat.Appeal is in these circumstances
dismissed in limine.
R.BASANT, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn