High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-11-25Revision allowed in part; impugned order modifi...

Aji K. Varghese v. Daisy

Case / Petition Number:RPFC No.10 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Badharudeen
Judgment Date: 2022-11-25
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court allowed the revision petition in part and modified the impugned order. The maintenance amount has been reduced from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 4,000 per month, effective from 04.07.2015. Arrears, if any, are to be calculated on the modified basis and deposited within five weeks from the date of judgment. A copy of the judgment is to be forwarded to the Family Court, Nedumangad, for information and compliance. The judgment clarifies that while maintenance remains payable, it must be grounded in the applicant’s means and status, with proper scrutiny of documentary evidence. Sd/ A. Badharudeen, J.
Final Disposition: Revision allowed in part; impugned order modified to Rs. 4,000 per month; arrears on revised basis to be deposited within five weeks; compliance by Family Court Nedumangad.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Aji K. Varghese

Respondents

Daisy

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.R.V.SREEJITH

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, filed in the Kerala High Court, challenging the Family Court, Nedumangad’s order in M.C. No.250/2015 directing maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, Aji K. Varghese, is the ex-husband of the respondent Daisy, who is the sole petitioner in the M.C. petition seeking maintenance on the ground of her lack of means. The Family Court awarded Rs.5,000 per month in favour of the respondent from 04.07.2015 onward, considering the respondent’s status and the established needs despite contestations about the petitioner’s income. The revision petitioner urged that Ext.R1, a salary certificate showing Rs.12,515 net monthly, is based on temporary employment and not properly proved since it was not supported by proper examination of the issuing authority and does not reflect a stable income. He argued that documents produced before court require adequate mind and scrutiny, citing Sunil Kumar v. Uthara and Surendran v. Aswin, and that gross salary, not merely net figures from temporary work, should be treated as means while fixing quantum. The petitioner contended that evidence of overseas employment by the respondent was unproved and that maintenance should reflect the payer’s status and actual means. The High Court ultimately held that while maintenance is warranted, the quantum required adjustment. The court relied on Rohtash Singh v. Smt. Ramendri to reaffirm maintenance for a divorced wife, but modified the monthly amount to Rs.4,000, directing arrears to be deposited within five weeks and the Family Court to comply with the modified order.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Maintenance shall be at par with the status of the husband.
Means of a salaried person shall be the gross salary.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner contends that Ext.R1 indicates a net monthly salary of Rs.12,515 from a temporary job and should not govern the quantum without proper proof. The Family Court failed to discuss the income and failed to scrutinize the document, rendering the maintenance order unsustainable. Citing Sunil Kumar v. Uthara and Surendran v. Aswin, the petitioner argues that documents produced must be subjected to careful scrutiny and that the means should be assessed on gross earnings rather than probationary, temporary pay. The petitioner also asserts that there is no proven evidence of the respondent’s overseas employment and that the maintenance should be commensurate with the husband’s status and means. Since the two minor children have attained majority, the petitioner asserts the financial burden on him has diminished and a revised, lower maintenance amount is warranted. The certificate Ext.R1 was not proven by examining the issuing authority, and its lack of details undermines reliance on the income stated.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contends that the Family Court rightly exercised its discretion under Section 125 Cr.P.C., considering the respondent’s status as a divorced wife in need of support. Maintenance for the wife and the prior maintenance to minor children (who have now attained majority) was properly adjudicated. The respondent asserts that the petitioner’s means should be assessed consistently with the payer’s status and that the paternal obligation continues. The respondent emphasizes that the degree of maintenance should reflect the day‑to‑day essentials and the respondent’s circumstances, and contends that the court’s reduction to Rs. 4,000 per month appropriately balances the wife’s needs with the petitioner’s means.”},

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sunil Kumar v. Uthara	2022 (3) KLT 660	Mentioned Only	Cited to emphasize that documents produced must be scrutinized with application of mind; not the decisive basis for the Court’s ruling in this case.
Surendran v. Aswin	2015 (4) KLT 682	Mentioned Only	Cited regarding the concept that means may include gross salary; used to illustrate principles rather than to dictate the outcome here.
Rohtash Singh v. Smt. Ramendri	2000(2) JT(SC) 553	Positive	Cited as supportive authority establishing that a divorced wife is entitled to maintenance and that the amount should reflect status and needs, guiding the settled legal principle adopted by the court.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Aji K. Varghese v. Daisy and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN FRIDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944** **RPFC NO.10 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 250/2015 OF FAMILY** ## **COURT, NEDUMANGAD** ## **PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:** AJI K.VARGHESE, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.T VARGHESE, KILIYIKKAL GRACE BHAVAN, H.NO.V.P VIII/629, MOONANMOODU, KODUNGANOOR P.O, VATTIYOORKKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:** DAISY, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.CHERIYAN ABRAHAM, THALAKKOTU HOUSE, KANAKKAPALAM P.O, MATTANNOORKARA, ERUMELY, KANJIRAPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **RPFC No.10 of 2016** 2 ## **O R D E R** ## **Dated, this the 25[th] November, 2022** In this revision petition filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the revision petitioner, who is the respondent in M.C.No.250/2015 on the files of the Family Court, Nedumangad, impugns order in the above M.C. dated 30.09.2015. 2. The respondent herein is the sole petitioner in the above M.C. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. In this matter, the respondent herein, who was the divorced wife of the revision petitioner raised claim for allowance of maintenance under Section 125(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, on the allegation that she did not have means to ## **RPFC No.10 of 2016** 3 maintenance and also on the specific allegation that the revision petitioner had been getting fair income at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month and, therefore, he could maintain the respondent also. 5. The revision petitioner/respondent filed objection highlighting the divorce. Further, he raised the contention that he was getting Rs.12,515/- alone as the income. He also contended that the petitioner is capable of maintaining herself as she had been employed abroad. 6. The Family Court adjudicated the matter. PW1, the respondent herein got examined and Exts.P1 to P4 marked on the side of the respondent herein. The revision petitioner got examined as CPW1. Ext.R1 got marked on the side of the revision petitioner. 7. Finally, the Family Court found that ## **RPFC No.10 of 2016** 4 the respondent did not have means of maintenance and, therefore, the revision petitioner is bound to pay maintenance. Accordingly, Rs.5,000/- per month was ordered to be paid as maintenance to the respondent from the date of petition i.e., from 04.07.2015 onwards. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that earlier the two minor children claimed maintenance before the Family Court and the Family Court granted Rs.3,000/- each as maintenance to the children. In another proceedings, the same got increased at the rate of Rs.2,000/- more. Therefore, at present the revision petitioner has been paying Rs.5,000/- each to the minors. 9. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that now both the minors attained majority and payment **RPFC No.10 of 2016** 5 of maintenance, as submitted, stands ceased. 10. In this matter, the main point that has been argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that though the revision petitioner placed Ext.R1 certificate showing his monthly salary at Rs.12,515/-, the Family Court Judge not discussed about his income in any way and without considering the said document, the order of maintenance was passed. 11. The learned counsel placed decision of this Court reported in _**Sunil Kumar v.**_ _**Uthara**_ [2022 (3) KLT 660] to contend that when a document is produced before a court of law, the same would require application of mind to the material aspects with reference to the objection and any order passed without doing the said exercise shall not sustain. He also placed another decision of this Court in _**Surendran v. Aswin**_ [2015 (4) KLT 682] to **RPFC No.10 of 2016** 6 contend that the 'means' of a salaried person shall be the gross salary and the same also must be considered while fixing the quantum of compensation. 12. In this matter, though the revision petitioner alleged that the respondent had been working abroad and she was capable of maintaining herself, the said aspect not proved at all. Accordingly, the Family court found the said contentions, against the revision petitioner. Therefore, the learned Family Court Judge relied on a decision reported in _**Rohtash Singh v. Smt.Ramendri**_ [2000(2) JT(SC) 553] held that a divorced wife also is entitled to get maintenance unless she got re-married. In fact, though the respondent herein is the divorced wife of the revision petitioner, since there is no evidence to show the respondent has been remarried, the liability of the revision **RPFC No.10 of 2016** 7 petitioner under Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C., is legally recognised. Therefore, he is bound to pay maintenance to the respondent. 13. Now, the question is whether the monthly salary derived out by a person like revision petitioner by doing a temporary work alone is decisive, while fixing quantum of compensation. As per Ext.R1, it has been stated that, as on 21.05.2015, the respondent had been working as LDC purely on temporarily basis in the State Institute of languages, Nalanda, Thiruvananthapuram and he was getting a net monthly salary of Rs.12,515/-. In this context, it has to be observed that mere production and making of a document before a court of law would not suffice the requirement of proof of the document. In this case, Ext.R1 alleged to be a salary certificate issued by the employer, but he was not examined to prove the same. Apart 8 ## **RPFC No.10 of 2016** from that, since the employment itself is on temporarily basis, there is no reason to hold that, that alone is the income of the respondent. Therefore, the income attempted to be proved based on a temporary employment, shall not be the sole basis to decide the quantum of compensation. It is true that the Family Court not discussed those aspects and the Family Court also not discussed, how the document was tendered into evidence without examining the person who issued the same. The certificate even does not contain the details as to who had issued the said certificate, rather than showing its author as the “administrative officer”. In this matter, as I have already posited, the respondent is entitled to get maintenance. It is the settled law that the maintenance shall be at par with the status of the husband. That apart, the maintenance amount shall be 9 ## **RPFC No.10 of 2016** something, which is sufficient to meet the day to day essentials of the claimant. Applying the said principles to the facts of this case, the quantum of compensation shall be arrived at. 14. However, it is an admitted fact that the respondent herein is the divorced wife and has been living separately. Further, the revision petitioner paid reasonable amount to two children till they attained majority. Now, the sons are residing along with the respondent. In such a case, the revision petitioner would not be over burdened in the matter of maintenance. 15. Accordingly, I am of the view that the maintenance can be reduced to Rs.4,000/- per month and the impugned order is modified to the above extent. It is made clear that while calculating the arrears on the basis of the modified ## **RPFC No.10 of 2016** **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** order, payment, if any, already effected shall be adjusted. Revision petitioner is directed to deposit the arrears within a period of five weeks from today. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Family Court, Nedumangad, for information and compliance. **==> picture [375 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** accordingly. Sd/- ## **A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE.** ww **RPFC No.10 of 2016** 11 ## **APPENDIX OF R.P(F.C) 10/2016** PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-I TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. No.378 OF 2013 DATED 16.10.2015 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD.