Gopalakrishnan v. Aswathy

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR MONDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1945 MAT.APPEAL NO.843 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2019 OF THE FAMILY COURT (MAVELIKKARA) MADE IN O.P.(OTHERS)NO.331 OF 2018 APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:** **GOPALAKRISHNAN AGED 57 YEARS SON OF LATE KUTTY, GOGO BHAVANAM, GIGI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANDOOR VILLAGE, ERAMALIKKARA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 512.** **BY ADV. KOCHUMOL KODUVATH** ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:** **ASWATHY AGED 29 YEARS DAUGHTER OF GOPALAKRISHNAN, PALANIKUNNATHIL HOUSE, NEERVILAKAM P.O., ARANMULA P.O., PIN-689 122, GIGI BHAVANAM, VANAVATHUKARA MURI, THIRUVANDOOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 512.** **BY ADV.** **SRI.IYPE JOSEPH** **THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 31.03.2023, THE COURT ON 22.05.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 Mat.Appeal No.843 of 2020 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## P.G.Ajithkumar, J. This is an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The appellant is the respondent in O.P. (others) No.331 of 2018 of the Family Court, Mavelikkara. That original petition was decreed as per the judgment dated 21.12.2019 and the appellant was directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent towards expenses of her marriage within two months from the date of the said decree. The appellant assails the said judgment and decree in this appeal. 2. There was a delay of 236 days in filing the appeal. As per the order dated 04.04.2022 in C.M.A.No.1 of 2020, delay was condoned. The appeal was admitted. Execution of the decree was stayed for a period of three months initially. The interim order of stay has been extended from time to time. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the 3 Mat.Appeal No.843 of 2020 respondent. 4. The respondent is the daughter of the appellant. She claimed Rs.10,00,000/- towards her marriage expenses. She contended that since 2011, the appellant has been living separately after deserting the respondent and her mother, and never thereafter, their affairs were attended by the appellant. The respondent was of marriageable age, but the appellant did not take any steps for solemnisation of her marriage. Therefore she with the help of her mother, relatives and friends arranged for her marriage to be solemnized on 03.02.2019. The respondent claimed that reasonable expenses of the marriage would be Rs.10,00,000/- and she filed the original petition claiming realisation of that amount from the appellant. 5. The appellant entered appearance and filed a written objection. He contended that the entire education expenses of the respondent were met by him. Now she is working as a pharmacist earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The appellant was prepared to meet the expenses of her 4 Mat.Appeal No.843 of 2020 marriage, but he was not even informed about any proposal for her marriage. The appellant does not have sufficient income and he has several ailments. The marriage was solemnised on 03.02.2019, but the appellant was not informed about or invited to the marriage. In such circumstances, the appellant is not obligated to pay the marriage expenses as claimed by the respondent. 6. The Family Court, Mavelikkara as per the order in I.A.No.2790 of 2018 directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as initial expenses of the marriage. On an application for review filed by the appellant, the Family Court modified that order, and the amount was refixed as Rs.1,00,000/-. The appellant challenged that order before this Court by filing an original petition wherein this Court confirmed the order of the Family Court. The appellant did not make payment. In such circumstances, the pleadings of the appellant were struck off by the Family Court. Thereafter, evidence on the side of the respondent was recorded. Proof affidavits of the 5 Mat.Appeal No.843 of 2020 respondent and Exts.A1 to A4 were received in evidence. The Family Court held that the respondent failed to prove that she incurred expenditure of the amount as quantified in Ext.A3, whereas, she proved to have expended the amounts covered by Exts.A3 (a) to Ext.A3(d). Accordingly, the Family Court passed the impugned decree directing the appellant to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent . 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant was not informed even about the marriage and for that reason itself, he has no obligation to make any payment. The learned Counsel highlighted that the marriage of a person should befit his or her status. Even if the appellant ought to meet the marriage expenses, what he is obliged is to meet the bare minimum expenses. It is further urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Family Court relied on Exts.A3(a) to A3(d), which were not proved. There are duplications also. Therefore, the findings entered into by the Family Court are quite incorrect and liable to be reversed. 6 Mat.Appeal No.843 of 2020 8. In **Azka Rajan and another v. Rajan M. S, [2023(3) KHC 204]** this Court held that an unmarried Hindu daughter has a statutory right to get the reasonable expenses of and incidental to her marriage from her father. Indisputably, the respondent is the daughter of the appellant and they are Hindus. Therefore, the appellant has obligation to pay the reasonable expenses in connection with the marriage of the respondent. 9. The contention of the appellant is that despite his having such a legal obligation, he is not bound to make any payment, since the marriage of the respondent was solemnised even without informing him. As the father, the appellant has every right to know about the details of the marriage of the respondent, namely, to whom she was married, in what manner the marriage is being solemnised, and so on and so forth. The respondent has no case that she informed the appellant of the aforesaid details. True that the parties are at loggerheads. The appellant and the respondent have been living separately for quite a long 7 Mat.Appeal No.843 of 2020 period. Despite that the respondent cannot have a valid excuse for not informing the appellant the details of her marriage. Ofcourse, that is a moral obligation of the respondent. Therefore, for that reason she cannot be denied her legal right of getting marriage expenses from her father, the appellant. 10. The respondent who filed proof affidavit was not cross examined. On going through her affidavit, no details regarding the expenses incurred in connection with the marriage could be seen. She relied on Ext.A3, a statement issued by the Piralassery Branch of Kerala Pulayar Mahasabha quantifying the expenses of the marriage at Rs.9,46,111/-. That document was not duly proved. The authority of that organization to issue such a statement is also not substantiated. Therefore Ext.A3 can only be ignored. 11. Ext.A3(a) was issued in the form of a receipt for Rs. 45,000/- in relation to the rent and other expenses of the auditorium where the marriage function was held. The 8 Mat.Appeal No.843 of 2020 respondent averred in her affidavit that the marriage was soleminsed on 03.02.2019 at Sri.Dharmasastha Temple, Neervilakam. Ext.A3(b) is again an estimate regarding sale of gold ornaments. The price estimated is Rs.1,48,912/-. It is only an estimate and not a receipt /cash bill. Therefore this document does not by itself prove that the respondent had purchased gold ornaments worth Rs.1,48,912/-. However, the oral testimony of the respondent in that regard is unchallenged. Therefore, the oral evidence together with Ext. A3(b) proved that such an amount was expended by the respondent. 12. Ext.A3(c) is a receipt for Rs. 6,500/- relating to the sale of flower bouquets, garlands etc. There is no reason not to act upon the said document. Ext.A3(d) contains statements regarding expenses in connection with supply of food and hall decoration. This is just a statement on a bit of paper printed with the name of one R.B. Catering and Panthal works. It is mentioned that lunch was served for 1200 persons @ Rs.140/- per person. The respondent 9 Mat.Appeal No.843 of 2020 did not state how many persons attended the marriage. There is absolutely no evidence in that regard. What she stated is that in the presence of her near relatives and friends, the marriage was solemnised. She did not take any steps to prove the contents of Ext.A3(d) as well. In such circumstances, it is quite impossible to act upon Ext.A3(d). Considering the nature of the said evidence, the possible finding is that an amount of Rs.2,00,412/- was actually expended in connection with the marriage. Of course, expenses in connection with serving food to the guests must also have been incurred. In the absence of any reliable evidence in that regard, we are of the view that what the respondent is entitled to is only a reasonable amount. ## 13. In **J W Aragadan v. Hashmi N.S and another,** **[2021(6) KLT 888]** this Court held that in a petition filed by an unmarried daughter against her father claiming marriage expenses, the Court can award only the bare minimum reasonable expenses. It was also held that even 10 Mat.Appeal No.843 of 2020 such bare minimum expenses could be ordered to be paid by the father only if he has the requisite means and the daughter is dependent on her. In the absence of any pleadings and evidence on the side of the appellant, the assertions of the respondent regarding the financial ability of the appellant and her dependency on him can only be accepted. In such circumstances, apart from the amount proved to have been expended, a reasonable amount in connection with serving of food to the guest who attended the marriage can also be ordered to be paid by the appellant. We are of the view that an amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be the reasonable expense in connection with the supply of food in connection with the marriage. 14. Accordingly, we hold that the finding of the Family Court regarding the quantification of the expenses requires interference, What the respondent is entitled is to realise an amount of Rs.2,50,412/-(2,00,412 + 50,000). The impugned decree is modified accordingly. This appeal is therefore allowed in part. The decree 11 Mat.Appeal No.843 of 2020 dated 21.12.2019 is modified. The appellant is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,412/- to the respondent within a period of two months from today. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** PV