Anandakumar v. Sasikala and others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1945** **RPFC NO. 357 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT MC 248/2015 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** ANANDAKUMAR AGED 44 YEARS AGE 44, S/O.REGHUVARA PANICKER,NULLIYODE ROADARIKATHU VEEDU,KUDAPPANAMOODU P.O., OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE,NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV SRI.R.GOPAN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 SASIKALA AGED 35 YEARS AGE 35, D/O.RAMACHANDRAN,PERUMVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, ELENCHIKULAM,CHERUVALLOOR P.O., MANCODE VILLAGE,VILAVANCODE TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT,TAMIL NADU. 2 AKSHAY AGED 11 YEARS AGE 11, (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER SASIKALA,PERUMVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, ELENCHIKULAM,CHERUVALLOOR P.O., MANCODE VILLAGE, VILAVANCODE TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT,TAMIL NADU. 3 NANDANA AGED 8 YEARS AGE 8, (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SASIKALA,CHERUVALLOOR P.O., MANCODE VILLAGE, VILAVANCODE TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT,TAMIL NADU. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC NO. 357 OF 2016 2 (Dated this the 9[th] day of November, 2023) ## **ORDER** The revision petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order in M.C.No.248/2015 passed by the Family Court, Nedumangad, directing the revision petitioner to pay enhanced maintenance allowance to the respondents – his wife and two children - @ Rs.3,500/-, Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,500/-, respectively. The revision petitioner was the respondent and the respondents were the petitioners before the Family Court. ## **Brief facts** 2. The respondents had filed the application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'Code') for the enhancement of monthly maintenance allowance which was ordered by the Family Court in M.C.No.210/2011. It was their case that, the 1[st] respondent is the wife of the revision petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are the children born in their wedlock. They had earlier filed M.C.No.210/2011, for an RPFC NO. 357 OF 2016 3 order of maintenance, which was allowed on consent of the parties and the revision petitioner agreed to pay the respondents Rs.1,750/- as monthly maintenance allowance. There was a change of circumstances over the four years after the passing of the order and the children had completed the age of 11 and 8 years and were studying in the 8[th] and 4[th] standards respectively. The revision petitioner was running an automobile workshop and was earning Rs.35,000/- per month. The 1[st] respondent required Rs.10,000/- and the respondents 2 and 3 required Rs.5,000/-, respectively, towards monthly maintenance allowance. 3. The revision petitioner opposed the application by denying that there was any change of circumstances. He contended that, based on the false complaints lodged by the 1[st] respondent, the police brutally manhandled him. As a result of the atrocities, the revision petitioner had become disabled and he was unable to do any work. He is depending on his mother, who is a pensioner. Hence, the RPFC NO. 357 OF 2016 4 application may be dismissed. 4. The 1[st] respondent produced the order in M.C.No.210/2011 which was marked as Ext.P1 and the revision petitioner produced and marked Exts.R1 to R9 series in evidence. 5. The Family Court, after appreciating the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned order, partly allowed the application by directing the revision petitioner to pay the respondents enhanced monthly maintenance @ Rs.2,500/-, Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,500/-, respectively. 6. It is assailing the order; the present revision petition is filed. 7. Heard; Sri.R.Gopan, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. Although notice has been served on the respondents, there is no appearance for them. 8. Is there any irregularity, illegality and impropriety in the impugned order. RPFC NO. 357 OF 2016 5 9. The revision petitioner admits his marriage with the 1[st] respondent, the paternity of the respondents 2 and 3 and the earlier order passed by the Family Court in M.C.No.210/2011 against him. 10. Indisputably, the order in M.C.No.210/2011 was passed on consent on 29.12.2011. At that time, the respondents 2 and 3 were aged only 7 and 4 years, respectively. 11. The respondents filed the application on the ground that there was change of circumstances on account of the fact that the respondents 2 and 3 had attained the age of 11 and 8 years and were pursuing their 8[th] and 4[th] standard and, therefore, the cost of living had increased. They also had a case that the revision petitioner was running his automobile workshop and earning Rs.35,000/- per month. 12. The revision petitioner's defence was that he was unable to carry on any work due to the injuries sustained RPFC NO. 357 OF 2016 6 to him due to the police brutality. 13. In the celebrated decision in **Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr.** [2020 (6) KHC 1], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Maintenance laws have been enacted as a measure of social justice to provide recourse to dependant wives and children for their financial support, so as to prevent them from falling into destitution and vagrancy. ## 14. In **Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena** **Kaushal & Ors.** [(1978) 4 SCC 70], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared that the provision for maintenance is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children, who fall within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) and reinforced by Article 39. 15. In **Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors.** [(2015) 6 SCC 353], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that Section 125 of the Code was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a RPFC NO. 357 OF 2016 7 woman who left her matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children, since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able bodied and could not avoid his obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute. 16. It is also well-settled that Courts are permitted to do some guesswork in fixing the quantum of maintenance. 17. Even though the revision petitioner had contended that he has no income, there is no material to prove that he is permanently disabled. Therefore, it is only to be perceived that he is as an able bodied person, who earns a minimum wage of Rs.1,000/- per day. Hence, his income can easily be fixed at Rs.25,000/- per month. 18. Viewed in the above angle, the order directing the revision petitioner to pay enhanced maintenance RPFC NO. 357 OF 2016 8 allowance to the respondents @ Rs.7,000/- per month is only reasonable and justifiable. 19. On an overall consideration of the pleadings and materials on record and the law on the point, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The revision petition is devoid of any merit and is hence, resultantly dismissed. Needless to mention, if the revision petitioner has already deposited any amount, pursuant to the interim order of this Court, he would be entitled for adjustment of the deposited amount, while calculating arrears of maintenance payable by the impugned order. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Family Court for further proceedings. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS JUDGE** rkc/09.11.23