Jaison K. G. @ Kulachithra Jaison v. Sub Collector/Maintenance Tribunal, Thalassery & Kulachithra Thresiamma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1942 ## WA.No.1251 OF 2020 [AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.03.2020 IN WP(C) NO.40193/2017(Y)] ## APPELLANT/PETITIONER: JAISON K. G. @ KULACHITHRA JAISON AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. LATE GEORGE, KULACHITHRA HOUSE, KANICHAR P. O. KELAKAM, KANICHAR AMSOM AND DESOM, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 674. BY ADVS. SRI.JACKSON JOHNY SRI. MUHAMMED YASIL SMT. ROSIN JOSEPH ## RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE SUB COLLECTOR/ MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY, (TRIBUNAL UNDER THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZEN ACT 2007), OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 101. 2 KULACHITHRA THRESIAMMA, AGED 70 YEARS W/O. LATE GEORGE, KULACHITHRA HOUSE, KANICHAR P.O., KELAKAM, KANICHAR AMSOM AND DESOM, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 674. R1 BY SRI. TEK CHAND, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 BY ADV. SRI. CIBI THOMAS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. No.1251/2020 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Dated this the 12[th] day of November, 2020 ## **S. Manikumar, CJ** This _intra court_ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 12.03.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.40193 of 2017, by which, a learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition by ordering thus: “6. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find from a perusal of the impugned order in both these writ petitions that the Maintenance Tribunal considered the prayer for cancellation of the settlement deed and decided that issue against Smt. Thressiamma by finding that the grievance of Thresiamma was essentially with regard to non availability of funds to take care of her interests in her old age, and that the said interests could be protected by directing Sri. Jaison K.G. to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- every month towards her maintenance. In my view, the impugned order of the Tribunal manifests a balancing of the rival interests of Thressiamma, on the one hand, and Sri. Jaison K.G. on the other, and is one that does not lead to an incongruous or arbitrary result. Thus, while maintaining the order of the Maintenance Tribunal, impugned in both these writ petitions, I dismiss both the writ petitions in their respective challenge against the impugned order of the Tribunal. 7. Resultantly, Sri. Jaison K.G. shall ensure that the maintenance amount awarded by the impugned order of the Maintenance Tribunal (Rs.10,000/- per month), shall be paid to Smt. Thressiamma every month and that the arrears of W.A. No.1251/2020 3 maintenance amounts, if any remaining unpaid from the date of the impugned order, viz 17.08.2017, is paid in six equal successive monthly instalments with effect from 1[st] April, 2020, along with the regular payment of monthly maintenance payable pursuant to this judgment.” 2. Facts leading to the filing of instant appeal are that appellant/writ petitioner is the son of the 2[nd] respondent (mother). As per Exhibit-P1 settlement deed dated 03.05.2014 of the office of the Sub Registrar, Peravoor, 2[nd] respondent gifted her only property having an extent of 1 acre to the appellant, which according to her, was done on the basis of a specific assurance that he will look after and protect her. 3. After transferring the property under Exhibit-P1 document, appellant failed to provide the 2[nd] respondent, the basic amenities and physical needs. Hence, she filed M.C. No.56/2015 (Exhibit-P2) before the Maintenance Tribunal, Thalassery, respondent No.1 herein, under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 seeking for a direction to cancel Exhibit-P1 settlement deed. It is the case of the 2[nd] respondent that since the only property with income was gifted to the appellant, she found it difficult to carry on her day-to-day activities. 4. Appellant has further stated that he appeared before the Maintenance Tribunal and filed Exhibit-P3 preliminary objection, contending that Exhibit-P2 petition is not maintainable and that the same is filed under W.A. No.1251/2020 4 the instigation of his sister, who was not in good terms with him. Before the Tribunal, appellant further contended that Exhibit-P2 was only an afterthought in filing O.S. No.156 of 2015 against the respondent and the sister. Father of the appellant died intestate and the entire property was assigned in the name of his mother, out of which a small portion was given to him. Respondent No.2 is having sufficient income to maintain herself and there is no specific condition in Exhibit-P1 deed dated 03.05.2014, as alleged by the 2[nd] respondent. 5. The Sub Collector, functioning as Maintenance Tribunal under the Act, 2007 has passed Exhibit-P7 order dated 17.08.2017, declining to cancel Exhibit-P1 settlement deed, however, directed the appellant to provide an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the 2[nd] respondent, by way of maintenance. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred W.P. (C) No.40193 of 2017 for the following reliefs. “(i) Call for the records in M.C. No.56 of 2015 on the file of the 1[st] respondent Maintenance Tribunal. (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash Exhibit-P7 order passed in M.C. No.56 of 2015 on the file of the 1[st] respondent Maintenance Tribunal.” 6. Before the writ court, the 2[nd] respondent herein has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it was contended as follows: W.A. No.1251/2020 5 A. True that the 2[nd] respondent had obtained property having an extent of 1 Acre from her husband as per Document No.920/2004 of SRO Peravoor. She transferred the property in favour of the petitioner by virtue of Ext-P1 Settlement Deed. While executing Ext-P1 deed, there was a special understanding to the effect that the writ petitioner will be looking after her and he would provide basic amenities and physical needs. But, contrary to the condition to look after my affairs, the writ petitioner began to harass her after obtaining the property. He failed to keep his promise. It is under the circumstances, Ext-P2 petition was filed, _inter alia_ , seeking cancellation of ExtP1 settlement deed. It is true that the petitioner filed Ext-P3 counter raising unsustainable contentions. The allegation that the entire property of the husband of the respondent is given to her is absolutely incorrect. Only 1 acre of property is given. That property is gifted to the writ petitioner. There is no other property belonging to the 2[nd] respondent. B. The suit filed by the petitioner was with a view to harass the 2[nd] respondent. The 2[nd] respondent has never tried to demolish any compound wall as alleged by the petitioner. The 2[nd] respondent is not at all concerned with Ext-P4 decree because she is not committing any act as alleged by the petitioner. C. The allegation that respondent No.2 is in possession of family property and she is getting income from the property, etc. is false. In fact, in respect of certain properties, the husband of the 2[nd] respondent died intestate and the eight children and the 2[nd] respondent are now co-owners in respect of that property. She is not having any property of her own. The only property she had is given to the writ petitioner as per Ext-P1. Ext-P5 W.A. No.1251/2020 6 income certificate is a document produced with a view to mislead this Court. Ext-P5 is in respect of the properties of her husband who died intestate. The husband of the 2[nd] respondent is survived by herself and eight children. Two of her children had died and they have got legal heirs also. What remains is only 119[th] share of the 3 acres of property for the 2[nd] respondent. The 2[nd] respondent is not getting any income from any property and she is not managing the property also. D. True that the petitioner filed W.P.C. No.1247/2016 before this Court seeking permission to contest the case filed before the 1[st] respondent by his power of attorney. This Court as per Ext-P6 judgment, allowed the same. This Court in fact also directed the learned Tribunal to proceed with the matter adverting to the maintainability of the petitioner. E. Ext-P5 judgment was pronounced on 13.01.2016. After that, Ext-P7 order was passed on 17.08.2017. The maintainability was considered and the writ petitioner also did not raise any objection regarding the same. The case was posted on 14.1.2016, 4.2.2016, 3.3.2016, 31.3.2016, 23.6.2016, 4.7.2016, 21.7.2016, 30.3.2016, 26.4.2016, 29.6.2016 and 17.8.2017. The petitioner did not raise any objection for the 1[st] respondent passing orders in the petition. It is only when Ext-P7 order is passed directing him to pay maintenance, he challenged the same. F. Moreover, specific prayer was made for maintenance before the 1[st] respondent by the 2[nd] respondent. The petitioner did not raise any objection at that point of time regarding the claim for maintenance made by the 2[nd] respondent. Even though, no separate application is filed, the 2[nd] respondent has made W.A. No.1251/2020 7 specific prayer before the 1[st] respondent regarding maintenance. It is on that basis, the petitioner is directed to pay maintenance. In fact, in the petition, it was specifically stated that the opposite party did not provide any financial help to the 2[nd] respondent for her livelihood and the opposite party is duty bound to protect the 2[nd] respondent. It is also specifically stated that the opposite party/petitioner herein has got sufficient income to provide maintenance to the 2[nd] respondent. A reading of the petition clearly reveals that specific claim for maintenance is throughout made by the 2[nd] respondent in her petition. G. The contention of the petitioner that Ext-P7 order is not sustainable in the eye of law, since the petition is filed Section 23 of the Act, is not liable to be appreciated. It is settled law that wrong quoting of Section is immaterial, especially in view of the fact that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a benevolent piece of legislation. Moreover, the 1[st] respondent should have ordered cancellation of Ext-P1 deed. The petitioner, therefore, is challenging Ext-P7 order on that count also. H. The 2[nd] respondent has gifted her only property given to by her husband to the petitioner by way of Ext-P1 settlement deed, on a specific understanding that she will be looked after and maintained by him. But, contrary to the understanding made at the time of the execution of Ext-P1, the petitioner committed breach of promise. The 2[nd] respondent is not having any property of her own, apart from the co-ownership property. She is not in possession of any property with income. She has no means to maintain herself. The only property available to her was given to the petitioner as per Ext-P1. Therefore, the W.A. No.1251/2020 8 petitioner is liable to provide maintenance to her. For the above said reasons, she prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.” 7. After considering the facts and circumstances, and the contentions raised, writ court by the impugned judgment, disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellant to ensure that the maintenance amount awarded by the Tribunal was paid to the 2[nd] respondent every month and that, the arrears of maintenance amounts, if any remaining unpaid from the date of the judgment, are paid in six equal monthly successive installments w.e.f. 1[st] April, 2020, along with regular payment of monthly maintenance payable pursuant to the said judgment. 8. Being aggrieved by the above, the appellant has filed this appeal on the following grounds: - A. Writ court ought to have found that the 2[nd] respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the family property, she is getting income from the property, and she along with the sister of the appellant is residing in a luxurious house worth more than Rs.1 Crore. As per Ext.P5 income certificate issued by the Village Officer, Kanichar Village, the 2[nd] respondent is having an income of Rs.84,000/- per annum from the properties and is having sufficient income to maintain her. - B. Respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007, for cancellation of settlement deed which is not maintainable. The father of the appellant died intestate and W.A. No.1251/2020 9 the entire property belonging to his father was assigned in the name of his mother out of which a small portion was given to him, appellant availed loan by mortgaging the said property and constructed a house in then said property and he along with his family is residing in the said house. - C. The 2[nd] respondent and the sister of the appellant are residing on the eastern side of the property of the appellant and in February, 2015, they tried to demolish the compound wall of the property of the appellant and on 17.03.2015, the appellant filed suit against the 2[nd] respondent and his sister before the Munsiff's Court, Kuthuparamba, as O.S.No.156/ 2015, restraining them from trespassing into the property of the petitioner and committing waste and the said suit was decreed _ex parte_ . The above petition was filed at the instigation of the appellant's sister and Ext.P2 petition is filed only to defend the suit filed against them. The learned Single ought to have appreciated the above fact and circumstances leading to the Ext.P2 petition and that Ext.P2 is an aftermath to the O.S. No.156/2015 restraining them from trespassing into the property of the petitioner and committing waste on the portion of property assigned to the appellant. Hence the interference of this Hon'ble Court is called for; - D. The 1[st] respondent, without considering the directions of this Court in Ext.P6 judgment, the maintainability of Ext.P2 petition, as also without considering the facts, circumstances, and the prayer sought for in the said petition, has passed Ext.P7 order, wherein the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the 2[nd] respondent as her maintenance. Exhibit-P7 order is, therefore, illegal, arbitrary, vague and not specific. The impugned order on the printed W.A. No.1251/2020 10 proforma without recording reasons, show non - application of judicial mind. - E. Writ court ought to have appreciated the contention of the appellant as regards the maintainability of Exhibit-P2 petition. The appellant lost his job and presently he is having no job. In such circumstances, the payment of arrears and the maintenance to the 2[nd] respondent would cause serious hardship and inconvenience to him. - F. To substantiate his contentions, appellant has relied on a decision in **Janardhanan & Another v. Maintenance Tribunal Appellate Authority and District Collector, Pathanamthitta & Others** reported in 2017 (5) KHC 1, wherein it was held that, "A senior citizen, including a parent, must be, as a precondition, unable to maintain himself from his own earning or out of the property owned by him. Only then can senior citizen claim maintenance. In other words, the parent must be without means or with inadequate means." In the instant case the 2[nd] respondent has income of Rs.84,000/-, as evident from Ext-P5. 9. Ms. Rosin Joseph, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that respondent No.2 has filed M.C. No.56/2015 before the Maintenance Tribunal under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and not under Section 5 of the Act. Hence, it is apparent that the 2[nd] respondent did not seek for maintenance from the appellant. According to the learned counsel, the only plea of the 2[nd] respondent (mother) was to cancel Exhibit-P1 settlement deed. W.A. No.1251/2020 11 10. On the said aspect, learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the writ petition filed by the 2[nd] respondent, that is W.P.(C) No.4635 of 2018, and the relief sought for. She further submitted that father of the appellant died intestate and the entire property belonging to his father was assigned in the name of his mother, thereby the 2[nd] respondent was in absolute ownership and possession of four acres of property. As per Exhibit-P1, appellant was bestowed with 0.4047 hectares of land and the rest 1.21406 hectares are in the absolute ownership and possession of the 2[nd] respondent. According to the appellant, the 2[nd] respondent is living in a family house situated in 2.5 acres of land and she also owns another 75 cents of land consisting of rubber plantation, as evident from Annexure-A2 photographs, filed along with I.A. No.3 of 2020. 11. Placing reliance on Exhibit-P5 Income Certificate issued by the Village Officer, Kanichar Village dated 24.12.2014, learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the 2[nd] respondent is having an annual income of Rs.84,000/-. It is also her submission that the 2[nd] respondent is having sufficient means to maintain herself and that she is also supported by other daughters. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant finally submitted that appellant was working in Abu Dhabi, since 2017. Later, he was terminated by the company, owing to the current COVID-19 pandemic situation. Presently, he W.A. No.1251/2020 12 has no job and is facing severe financial constraint. In such circumstances, she prayed to interfere with the impugned judgment. 13. Rebutting the contentions of the appellant, Mr. Cibi Thomas, learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent, submitted that the entire property having an extent of 1 acre, which she derived from her husband, was given to the appellant with a hope that he would provide maintenance to her. However, he has failed to provide even the basic amenities. She is now living with a divorced daughter. As the entire property was given to her son, the appellant, the other daughters are not providing maintenance. Appellant earned a good income from the employment abroad, and constructed a huge house worth Rs.35 lakhs, but failed to maintain the 2[nd] respondent. 14. Controverting the allegation of the appellant that the 2[nd] respondent is earning a personal income of Rs.84,000/- from the landed properties, as per Exhibit-P5 Income Certificate dated 24.12.2014 issued by the Village Officer concerned, learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent submitted that the said amount represents the annual family income, not the personal income of the 2[nd] respondent. He further submitted that not even a single penny is given to the 2[nd] respondent from the date of the award. Respondent is aged 75 years and is unable to meet her medical and other expenses. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed to sustain the impugned judgment. W.A. No.1251/2020 13 15. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 16. Exhibit-P3 preliminary objection filed by the appellant before the Maintenance Tribunal is reproduced hereunder: ## **“BEFORE THE HON'BLE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY** ## **M.C.NO. 56/2015** Kulachitra Tressiamma : Petitioner Vs. Kuachitra Jaison : Respondent ## **PRELIMINARY OBJECTION FILED BY RESPONDENT KUACHITRA JAISON IN THE ABOVE MATTER** 1. Above petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. This respondent denied entire averments in the petition except those are specifically admitted hereunder. 2. It is submitted that petitioner assigned 0.4047 Htrs of the extent to the respondent as per document No. 1319/2014. The larger extent of property was possessed by the father of the respondent (petitioner's husband) and he transferred the total extent to the petitioner by a registered document, thereafter a small portion from the larger extent assigned to the respondent by the petitioner. The assignment of property by the petitioner is an unconditional one. At the time of assignment of the above said extent to the respondent, respondent never given any promise or promise to do anything to the petitioner, After assignment of above said extent this respondent constructed a house building for an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- (Thirty Five Lakhs) The petitioner and his sister are in enimical terms with the respondent. She instigated the petitioner and filed the above petition before this Hon'ble Tribunal. Petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent to trespassing into the plaint schedule property and committing waste therein as OS 156/2015. Above suit W.A. No.1251/2020 14 decreed on 24/07/2015. The above petition is an afterthought of the above suit. The petitioner is having larger acres of landed property. Petitioner is having a luxury house building worth more than 1,00,000,00/-(One Crore). Respondent produced a photograph of the house building. It is submitted that petitioner admitted annual income is 84,000/- (Eight Four Thousand) per annum. (Respondent produced a copy of the income certificate) According to the petitioner she required only 5,000/- per month for her maintenance. The petitioner is having landed property and luxury house building, motor car etc. Petitioner's husband died intestate. That property is also managed by the petitioner herself and she is not willing to divide the property to the legal heirs including the respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner is misusing the provision of the maintenance act for the illegal motive of her daughter. Respondent filed a suit against the petitioner, before Munsiff Court, Kuthuparamba as OS 156/2015. This petitioner is an outcome of the above case. This petitioner is having sufficient means to maintain herself. It is submitted that this respondent is also ready and willing to provide maintenance to the petitioner if she is required to so. Hon'ble Tribunal may consider this preliminary objection and dismissed the above petition with the cost of this respondent. Respondent The above stated facts are true and best of my knowledge and belief verified and signed on 22/07/2015 at Kuthuparamba.” 17. Exhibit-P5 Income Certificate of the 2[nd] respondent issued on ## 24.12.2014 by the Village Officer, Kanichar Village, is extracted hereunder: GOVERNMENT OF KERALA KANCICHAR VILLAGE OFFICE W.A. No.1251/2020 15 ## INCOME CERTIFICATE No. 9551765 Date: 24/12/2014 Certified that the Annual Family Income of the person with the details mentioned below from all source is Rs.84000 (Rupees eighty four thousand only) |Name of Person to whom<br>certificate is issued|THRESSIA| |---|---| |Gender|Female| |Age|64| |Name of Father|ULAHANNAN| |Address|KULACHITHRA 400, KANICHAR| |Post Office with Pin code|KANICHAR, 670674| |Name of Localbody|Kanichar| |Village|Kanichar| |Taluk|Iritty| |District|Kannur| |Certificate issued Date|24/12/2014| |Designation of the issuing officer|Village Officer| |Purpose for which the certificate<br>is issued for|KANICHAR GRAMA<br>PANCHAYATH| This certificate is issued based on the details given in the application, local enquiry, facts and records produced.” ## 18. Exhibit-P7 order dated 17.08.2017 passed by the Maintenance ## Tribunal in M.C. No.56 of 2015 reads thus: ## “ **Order** The opposite party Kulachithra Jaison shall pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to Smt. Kulachithra Thresiamma. The same shall be paid to her before the 10[th] day of every month through Bank Account or Money Order. It is ordered that Smt. Kulachithra Thresiamma shall give the account number to the opposite party. Signed under my hand and seal on the 17[th] day of August 2017. W.A. No.1251/2020 16 Signature Presiding Officer Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Collector, Thalassery By order Senior Superintendent.” 19. Annexure-A1 termination letter dated 27.04.2020 issued to the ## appellant is extracted hereunder: “02/PF-17149/02102 27 April 2020 Mr. Jaison Kulachithara George B/No. 17149 Hse Officer SOD Department NPCC Dear Mr. Jaison, ## **Sub: Your Termination from NPCC (the “company”)** The purpose of this letter is to inform you that your services with the Company will end on July 31, 2020, due to redundancy. The duration from June 30, 2020 to July 30, 2020 will be considered as a notice period, during which you are required to continue to work, unless otherwise instructed. Please contact the Human Capital Department for the details of your final dues and the required steps and formalities for cancellation of your residency, hand-over of your work related matters, and return of company property and any items in your possession. We thank you for your services and contribution. With best regards, Mohammed Al Qayedi Act. Vice President Human Capital” W.A. No.1251/2020 17 20. Earlier, following the decision of a Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in **Subhashini v. District Collector, Kozhikode and Others** reported in **2020 (5) KHC 195** , W.P(C) No.4635 of 2018 has been filed by the 2[nd] respondent. 21. Though, before the Maintenance Tribunal, appellant has contended that the application filed by the 2[nd] respondent was only to set aside Exhibit-P1 settlement deed dated 03.05.2014, under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the appellant has candidly admitted that he is ready to provide maintenance, if he is required to do so. Relevant portion from the preliminary objection is reproduced hereunder: “This petitioner is having sufficient means to maintain herself. It is submitting that this respondent is also ready and willing to provide maintenance to the petitioner if she required to do so.” 22. That apart, as per Section 5 of the Act, Tribunal is empowered to pass orders for maintenance. The very reason to file an application under Section 23 of the Act is due to the fact that maintenance was not provided to the 2[nd] respondent. When the appellant even in his preliminary objection has agreed to pay maintenance, if he is required to do so, the technical objection now made that application under Section 5 of the Act has not been filed, nor there was a prayer for maintenance, is rejected. W.A. No.1251/2020 18 23. Appellant in his preliminary objection has also admitted that he has constructed a house for Rs.35 lakhs. Though strong reliance has been made on Exhibit-P5 Income Certificate issued by the Village Officer of Kanichar Village, perusal of the same shows that the Village Officer, while issuing the said certificate, has categorically stated that Rs.84,000/- is the annual family income of the 2[nd] respondent. Thus, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent, the said amount cannot be said to be the income of the 2[nd] respondent alone. 24. Photographs enclosed in I.A. No.3 of 2020 cannot be a proof that the 2[nd] respondent owns lands and houses. Contention of the appellant that the 2[nd] respondent is supported by other daughters and that she has means to maintain herself is not substantiated. 25. Respondent No.2 is stated to be aged 75 years and living with a divorced daughter. Appellant, the only son, having been gifted with a land to an extent of one acre, and gainfully employed abroad, has failed to provide maintenance to his mother. He is morally and legally bound to pay maintenance. 26. M.C. No.56/2015 has been filed on 20.04.2015. Maintenance has been ordered on 17.08.2017. For more than three years, appellant has not paid the maintenance. Reason, now addressed that he has lost his job, cannot be accepted for his failure to provide maintenance, all along. W.A. No.1251/2020 19 However, having regard to the subsequent events, we are inclined to reduce the quantum of maintenance from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.7,500/-, to be paid from the date of Exhibit-P7 order in M.C. No.56/2015. Arrears of maintenance of Rs.2,98,000/- be paid in three equated monthly installments. Appellant is further directed to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,500/- before 10[th] of every month. 27. In the event of his failure to pay the arrears of maintenance or the monthly maintenance, within the time as ordered by this Court, it is open to the 2[nd] respondent, to take recourse under law. With the above directions, this appeal is allowed in part. No costs. Sd/- **S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE** Sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** krj W.A. No.1251/2020 20 ## **APPENDIX** ## **APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES** :- A1:- TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION LETTER DATED 27.04.2020 A2:- TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:- NIL** //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO C.J.