OP (FC) No. 494/2023 & Mat.Appeal Nos. 132/2023, 708/2022, Binu Somarajan v. Indrajith and Others (Family Court, Chavara) - High Court of Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL`** ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 21ST BHADRA, 1945 ``` ``` OP (FC) NO. 494 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT EA 100/2022 OF FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ``` ``` BINU SOMARAJAN AGED 49 YEARS S/O.SOMARAJAN, THARAMEL VEEDU, SOORANADU NORTH, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, WORKING AT AMIAS HOLDING, COMPANY LIMITED, BURAIDHA STREET, HAI-AL RAYYAN, RIYATH, KSA REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, REJI.S, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.SUDHAKARAN, KUNNAYYATHU PADEETTATHIL, ALUMKADAVU P.O, NAMBARUVIKALA MURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690573 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.SIJU S.ABHILASH ANJANA KANNATH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDERS AND GARNISHEE:`** ``` 1INDRAJITH AGED 20 YEARS S/O.BINU SOMARAJAN & JINI RAJ, LILAK (PALESSERIL), MANAPPALLY SOUTH MURI, PAVUMBA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT -, PIN – 690518 ``` ``` 2INDRAJA AGED 17 YEARS, D/O.BINU SOMARAJAN & JINI RAJ, LILAK (PALESSERIL), MANAPPALLY SOUTH MURI, PAVUMBA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690518 (MINOR REPRESENTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT HER MOTHER), ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`OP(FC)NO.494/2023 & Mat.Appeal Nos.132/2023, 708/2022`** ``` 3JINI RAJ AGED 40 YEARS D/O.RAJAN, LILAK (PALESSERIL), MANAPPALLY SOUTH MURI, PAVUMBA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690518 ``` ``` 4MANAGER FEDERAL BANK LTD, THAMARAKKULAM BRANCH, THAMARAKKULAM P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -, PIN – 690530 ``` ``` BY ADVS. UMMUL FIDA C.IJLAL(K/826/2013) JAI GOVIND M.J.(K/1976/2019) P.PARVATHY(K/994/2016) ``` ``` THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.09.2023, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL.NOS.132/2023, 708/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` OP(FC)NO.494/2023 & Mat.Appeal Nos.132/2023, 708/2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL ``` ## **`&`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA TUESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 21ST BHADRA, 1945 MAT.APPEAL NO. 132 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OP 466/2017 OF FAMILY COURT, ``` ## **`CHAVARA`** ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1INDRAJITH AGED 19 YEARS S/O BINU SOMARAJAN & JINI RAJ, LILAK (PALESSERIL), MANAPPALLY SOUTH MURI, PAVUMBA VILLAGE, KARUNGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690518., PIN – 690518 2INDRAJA AGED 16 YEARS D/O BINU SOMARAJAN & JINI RAJ, LILAK(PALESSERIL), MANAPPALLY SOUTH MURI, PAVUMBA VILLAGE, KARUNGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690518. REPRESENTED THROUGH HER MOTHER JINI RAJ, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O RAJAN, LILAK(PALESSERIL), MANAPPALLY SOUTH MURI, PAVUMBA VILLAGE, KARUNGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690518., PIN – 690518 ``` ``` 3JINI RAJ, AGED 39 YEARS D/O RAJAN, LILAK(PALESSERIL), MANAPPALLY SOUTH MURI, PAVUMBA VILLAGE, KARUNGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-., PIN – 690518 ``` ``` 4 ``` ## **`OP(FC)NO.494/2023 & Mat.Appeal Nos.132/2023, 708/2022`** ``` BY ADVS. UMMUL FIDA C.IJLAL NIMMY JOHNSON RESHMA.P. THAREEQ ANVER K. JAI GOVIND M.J. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT:`** ``` BINU SOMARAJAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O SOMARAJAN, THARAMEL VEEDU, SOORANADU NORTH, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, WORKING AT AMIAS HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED, BURAIDHA STREET, HAI- AL- RAYYAN RIAYADH, KSA, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, REJI S., AGED 43 YEARS, S/O SUDHAKARAN, KUNNAYYATHU PADEETTATHIL, ALUMKADAVU P.O., NAMBARARUVIKALA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 690573., PIN – 690573 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.SIJU ANJANA KANNATH(K/939/2014) ``` ``` THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.09.2023, ALONG WITH OP (FC).494/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` OP(FC)NO.494/2023 & Mat.Appeal Nos.132/2023, 708/2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA TUESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 21ST BHADRA, 1945 MAT.APPEAL NO. 708 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OP(OTHERS) 466/2017 OF FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA ``` ## **`APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:`** ``` BINU SOMARAJAN, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.SOMARAJAN, THARAMEL VEEDU, SOORANADU NORTH, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, WORKING AT AMIAS HOLDING, COMPANY LIMITED, BURAIDHA STREET, HAI-AL RAYYAN, RIYATH, KSA REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, REJI.S, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.SUDHAKARAN, KUNNAYYATHU PADEETTATHIL, ALUMKADAVU P.O, NAMBARUVIKALA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT – 690573. BY ADVS. K.SIJU S.ABHILASH ANJANA KANNATH ``` ``` OP(FC)NO.494/2023 & Mat.Appeal Nos.132/2023, 708/2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1INDRAJITH, AGED 19 YEARS S/O.BINU SOMARAJAN & JINI RAJ, LILAK PALESSERIL), MANAPPALLY SOUTH MURI, PAVUMBA VILLAGE,KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT – 690518. ``` ``` 2INDRAJA, AGED 16 YEARS, D/O. BINU SOMARAJAN & JINI RAJ, LILAK (PALESSERIL), MANAPPALLY SOUTH MURI, PAVUMBA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690518 (MINOR REPRESENTED BY THE 3RD APPELLANT HER MOTHER). ``` ``` CAUSE TITLE REGARDING REPRESENTATION OF R2 MINOR BY 3RD RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS 'MINOR REPRESENTED 3RD RESPONDENT, HER MOTHER AS PER ORDER DATED 3/1/2023 IN IA 2/2022. ``` ``` 3JINI RAJ, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O.RAJAN, LILAK (PALESSERIL), MANAPPALLY SOUTH MURI, PAVUMBA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT – 690518. ``` ``` BY ADVS. UMMUL FIDA C.IJLAL(K/826/2013) JAI GOVIND M.J.(K/1976/2019) NIMMY JOHNSON(K/949/2013) ``` ``` THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 12.09.2023, ALONG WITH OP (FC).494/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` OP(FC)NO.494/2023 & Mat.Appeal Nos.132/2023, 708/2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** [OP (FC) Nos.494/2023, Mat.A.132/2023 & 708/2022] ## **Amit Rawal, J.** 1. Mat.Appl.708/2022 titled as Binu Somarajan v. Indrajith and Others, is preferred by the father/husband challenging the order dated 30.05.2022 in O.P.(Others)No.466/2017 ordering maintenance to the son - 1[st] respondent to the tune of Rs.5,000/(Rupees five thousand only) per month till attainment of majority and Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) per month to the daughter - 2[nd] respondent till marriage, with a further direction to adjust the amount in the FD accounts opened in the name of children with the maintenance amount, for, the marriage between the husband and wife namely Binu Somarajan and Jiny Raj had been dissolved by way of judgment and decree dated 16.05.2014 in O.P.(HMA)No.1427/2014; O.P.(FC)No.494/2023 is against the order dated 21.06.2023 passed in E.A.No.100/2022 in E.P.No.26/2022 in O.P.No.466/2017 titled as Binu somarajan represented by power of attorney holder Reji.S v. Indrajith and ``` OP(FC)NO.494/2023 & Mat.Appeal Nos.132/2023, 708/2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` Others and Mat. Appeal No.132/2023 by wife and children against father/husband for setting aside condition No.3 contained in the impugned order dated 30.05.2022 and for further enhancement of the compensation keeping in view the financial status of the father/husband. Since the parties are same, we intend to dispose of all the cases together. 2. This is a classic case where father, namely, Sri.Binu Somarajan working as Accountant in Gulf and earning Rs.3 lakhs per month married Jiny Raj on 03.02.2001 according to the ceremonies prevailing among their community and out of the wedlock, two children namely Indrajith-son were born on 01.02.2002 and daughter Indraja on 23.11.2005. Parties are Hindu by religion and caste. Owing to the differences between the husband and the wife, marriage was dissolved on 16.05.2014 in O.P.(HMA)No.1427/2014 as per the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 23.10.2013. Vide Clauses 3 and 5 of the agreement, father/husband had agreed to open FD in the name of children and agreed to bear all the expenses ie., maintenance of ``` OP(FC)NO.494/2023 & Mat.Appeal Nos.132/2023, 708/2022 ``` ``` 9 ``` the children, but non-compliance of the same impelled the wife and children to file O.P.No.466/2017. By that time the maintenance as required to be paid by the father/husband had burgeoned exponentially. It was stated that the amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) was needed for the treatment and medicine of Indraja, who is studying in 6[th] class and undergoing treatment for static encephalopathy in various hospitals and the son would require at least a sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees ten thousand only). In all Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) was claimed for the expenses of both the children. The aforementioned petition was contested by the father/husband through power of attorney. Trial Court on the basis of the evidence, vide judgment and decree dated 30.05.2022, allowed the petition and issued the following directions: 1) Respondent is directed to pay maintenance to the 1[st] petitioner @ Rs.5,000/- per month from 02.08.14 till he attains majority and pay maintenance to the second petitioner @15,000/- per month from 02.08.14 till she ``` OP(FC)NO.494/2023 & Mat.Appeal Nos.132/2023, 708/2022 ``` ``` 10 ``` gets married. Respondent is directed to comply with this direction in one month failing which petitioners are entitled to recover the amount through due process of law. 2) Past maintenance will carry interest @ 6% from the date of decree till realization. 3) Respondent is allowed to adjust the amount be deposited in the name of petitioners 1 and 2 in fixed deposits with the amount due in this petition. 4) There will be no order as to costs. 3. The aforementioned amount, as determined by the judgment and decree was also not complied with, necessitating the decree holders ie., the children and the mother/wife to file E.P.No.26/2022. During the pendency of the E.P., E.A.No.100/2022 was filed for attachment of the bank account No.18702300003770 of Federal Bank branch. Husband/father submitted application No.23/2023 for lifting the attachment order by making out the case that it is the only account having an ``` OP(FC)NO.494/2023 & Mat.Appeal Nos.132/2023, 708/2022 ``` ``` 11 ``` amount of Rs.30 lakhs maintained by him and in case the attachment is lifted the liability can be warded off. The Trial Court vide impugned order, noticing that the amount due to the decree holders was Rs.18 lakhs, ordered the attachment of Rs.18 lakhs from the FD account number mentioned in the petition. It is the said order which has been challenged by the husband/father in O.P.(FC)No.494/2023 and vide Mat.A.No.708/2022, has been preferred against the the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2022 ordering the maintenance to the extent as noticed above. 4. Mat.Appeal.No.132/2023 has been filed whereby the condition No.3, extracted above is sought to be modified as the agreement dated 23.10.2013 did not contain the condition of adjustment of the amount by the father/husband lying deposited in the shape of FDR in the name of children. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the husband /father submitted that it is the only account which the husband is maintaining, until and unless the attachment order is not lifted, the liability as incurred in view of the judgment and decree cannot ``` OP(FC)NO.494/2023 & Mat.Appeal Nos.132/2023, 708/2022 ``` ``` 12 ``` be honoured. As per the interim order substantial amounts have been paid to the children as well as the wife and two FDs which on majority would be almost approximately Rs.10 lakhs an odd amount had been opened in the joint names of the husband and both children. This aspect has totally has been unnoticed while passing the impugned order. Petitioner is willing to pay the amount in pursuance to judgment and decree but the fact remains that until and unless the pending appeal No.708/2022 claiming the amount of maintenance is not decided, anomalous situation has arisen. 6. On the other hand, Ms.Ummul Fida, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the children ie., respondents in O.P. (FC)No.494/2023 and Mat.Appl.No.708/2022 and appellant in Mat.Appeal.No.132/2023 submitted that on two occasions, in the Matrimonial Appeal preferred by the father/husband, this Court had granted the opportunity to the father/husband to pay the liability in the manner and mode but the same has also not been honoured, thus, the conduct of the petitioner is not only ``` OP(FC)NO.494/2023 & Mat.Appeal Nos.132/2023, 708/2022 ``` ``` 13 ``` contumacious but tantamounts to willful disobedience. Petitions are liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Adjustment of the FD amount as per the judgment and decree of Family Court in O.P. (Others)No.466/2017 dated 30.05.2022 is neither here and there, for, there is no such condition in the agreement impelling the husband/father to do the same. Father has many other accounts as per the documents on record X1 series, certified copy of which had been handed over to show that he has almost more than Rs.10 crores, thus misrepresented the Court alleging to be holder of only one account. The amount of maintenance as per the order of the Family Court, keeping in view the financial status of the father is too paltry. Such status cannot be maintained by the wife keeping in view the fact that the daughter is suffering from serious ailment and substantial amount is spent towards the cost of treatment. Son has now attained majority and is going to college and needs sufficient amount to meet day to day expenses. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books. ``` OP(FC)NO.494/2023 & Mat.Appeal Nos.132/2023, 708/2022 ``` ``` 14 ``` 8. Before addressing the rival arguments of the parties, it would be imperative for us to extract the judgment and decree dated 16.05.2014 passed in OP(HMA)No.1427/2014 whereby husband and wife had agreed to dissolve the marriage on the basis of the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 23.10.2013 and also the condition No.3 and 5 of the agreement: ## **Judgment and decree dated 16.05.2014** This is a joint petition for divorce filed by the petitioners u/s13B of the Hindu Marriage Act r/w. s.7 of the Family Courts Act. 2. Petitioners are husband and wife and they belong to Hindu-Ezhava community. Their marriage was solemnized on 03.02.2001 at Regency Hall, Oachira as per custom prevailing in their community. They were living together as husband and wife at the residence of the first Indrajith and Indraja were born to them out of that wedlock, who have now attained the age of 11 and 8 years respectively. Due to difference of opinion the spouses have been living separately since 23.08.2012. In spite of earnest efforts of the relatives and mediators they could not restore the marital relationship. First petitioner has agreed to return 40 gold sovereign or its market price in the alternative and also Rs.2,04,000/- to the second petitioner. The petitioners have agreed to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- in the name of the ``` OP(FC)NO.494/2023 & Mat.Appeal Nos.132/2023, 708/2022 ``` ``` 15 ``` children in A/c Nos 18700200000062 and 18700200000088. They have already settled their claims in respect of financial matters. They would raise no claim with regard to the same. The marital tie between the parties has been irretrievably broken and there is no chance for a reunion. There is no collusion between them in filing this petition and has been filed out of free consent and volition. Hence this petition. 3. On the expiry of the statutory waiting period as provided u/s.13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the petition was taken up but none of the parties willing to withdraw the consent already given. They were directed to undergo counseling which also ended in failure. Petitioners have filed affidavits in support of the averments in the petition. Ext.Al is the marriage certificate dated 24.10.2013. 4. Heard the petitioners. Perused the records. 5. Status of the parties admitted. They are not ready to withdraw the consent already given for separation. I am fully satisfied that the marriage between the parties irretrievably broken and there is no chance for reunion. Further their mutual consent was voluntary, out of freewill and not vitiated by fraud or undue influence. There is no reason to suspect that the parties have colluded in this regard. There would be status quo with regard to custody of minor children with the 2nd petitioner. Hence the petition allowed and a decree for divorce is hereby passed declaring the marriage between the parties to be dissolved with effect from the date of decree. Office shall issue a photocopy of judgment to the ``` OP(FC)NO.494/2023 & Mat.Appeal Nos.132/2023, 708/2022 ``` ``` 16 ``` parties on usual terms as R.10 of the Family Courts Procedure Rule 1989. ## **Conditions 3 & 5 of the Agreement dated 23.10.2013** 3. Considering the health conditions and educational requirements of the minor ward Indraja, the first party agrees to find and acquire admission at an appropriate school for her education and agrees to bear all her educational and medical expenses. Additionally, the educational and medical expense of the ward Indrajith shall be borne by the first party 5. Considering the minors' future and maintenance, the first party agrees to deposit a Rs. 10 Lakh for each minor, in account numbers 18700200000088 and 1870200000062 at Federal Bank, Thamarakulam Branch as recurring deposits. Rs. 5 Lakh for each child will be deposited before the decision on the mutual divorce case, and the remaining Rs. 10 Lakh will be deposited in installments within the recurring deposit's time frame. Subsequently, the first party will transfer the account records to the second party and the parties agree that the funds will only be used for the minors' maintenance and protection. 9. From the perusal of the conditions extracted above, it is evident that husband/father was liable to open FD in the name of wife and children for Rs.10 lakhs each, though he complied with, ``` OP(FC)NO.494/2023 & Mat.Appeal Nos.132/2023, 708/2022 ``` ``` 17 ``` but opened the FD in joint account. A very rosy picture has been projected before this Court by placing on record Exts.P6 and P7 in O.P.(FC)No.494/2023 reflecting purported compliance of the judgment and decree passed on the basis of agreement that FD to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs each in the joint name of children has been opened, but the fact remains the FD initially was opened with a paltry amount of Rs.5 lakhs which was renewed from time to time. This fact is evident from the certified copy of X1 series containing the number of the accounts vis-a-vis the FDs. Condition No.5 of the agreement did not contain such condition imploring the husband to open FD of lesser amount. In fact, it was meant to open FD of Rs.10 lakhs as a base amount. As per condition No.5, husband was required to open FD, but was opened to show there is compliance of agreement, resulted into institution of O.P.No.466/2017. The aforementioned petition was also contested tooth and nail resulting into the directions as extracted above. The condition No.3 in our considered view is contrary to condition No.5 of the agreement. The clause did not contain any adjustment of ``` OP(FC)NO.494/2023 & Mat.Appeal Nos.132/2023, 708/2022 ``` ``` 18 ``` the amount vis-a vis the deposit of the FD amount. The children and wife have been dragged to such an extent that they were constrained to file the execution petition. However, during the interregnum, husband challenged the judgment decree vide appeal No.708/2022. In the aforementioned appeal, Division Bench of this Court on 29.11.2022, 12.01.2023 and 05.04.2023 passed the following orders/directions : ## **Order dated 29.11.2022** ## **C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2022** This is an application filed by the petitioner-appellant seeking an order to condone the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal. 2. Having gone through the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, this Court is of the view that the delay has been satisfactorily explained. Accordingly, the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. ## **Mat.Appeal No.708 of 2022** Admit. Call for LCR. ## **I.A.No.1 of 2022** There will be an interim stay of the execution of the judgment in O.P(Others)No.466 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court, Chavara, on condition that the appellant shall ``` OP(FC)NO.494/2023 & Mat.Appeal Nos.132/2023, 708/2022 ``` ``` 19 ``` deposit 50% of the total decree debt before the Family Court, within a period of one month. On such deposit being made, the Family Court shall permit the respondents to withdraw the said amount. ## **Order dated 12.01.2023** The appellant has filed this petition seeking to issue a direction to the Family Court, Chavara to withdraw attachment as per the order in E.A.No.100 of 2022 in E.P.No.26 of 2022 in O.P.No.466 of 2017 in respect of a term deposit made by him. As per the order dated 29.11.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 this Court granted interim stay of execution of the decree in O.P.No.466 of 2017 on condition that the appellant shall deposit 50% of the total decree debt. The petitioner-appellant would contend that an amount of Rs.18 lakhs is due from the appellant to the respondents as per the impugned decree. The Family Court ordered to attach Rs.30 lakhs, which was deposited by the petitioner in a fixed deposit account in the joint name of himself and the minor child with the Federal Bank, Thamarakulam Branch. He has liability to pay a term loan also. In such circumstances the petitioner seeks a direction to the Family Court as pointed above, so that he can comply with the direction of this Court. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The attachment was ordered by the Family Court ``` OP(FC)NO.494/2023 & Mat.Appeal Nos.132/2023, 708/2022 ``` ``` 20 ``` taking into account the circumstances obtained in E.P.No.26 of 2022. Therefore, it is appropriate to leave the request of the petitioner made in this petition to be decided by the Family Court. Therefore, this petition is disposed of granting extension of one month from today to make the deposit as per the order dated 29.11.2022 and directing the Family Court to take a decision, if the petitioner files an application for withdrawing attachment in respect of the deposit, in whole or part, the petitioner claimed to have made in the name of himself and the minor children. ## **Order dated 5.04.2023** The judgment and decree in O.P.(Others) No.466 of 2017 are under challenge in this appeal. The decree directs the appellant to pay monthly maintenance to the 1st respondent at the rate of Rs.5,000/- till he attains majority and to the 2nd petitioner at the rate of Rs.15,000/- till she gets married. An execution petition is pending before the Family Court, Chavara. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that future maintenance to the 2nd respondent is not being paid by the appellant for the reason that there is a conditional order of stay. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. We are of the view that the appellant is liable to make payment of the maintenance amount due to the 2nd respondent, which falls due every month. Therefore, we direct the appellant to make payment of monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/-, ``` OP(FC)NO.494/2023 & Mat.Appeal Nos.132/2023, 708/2022 ``` ``` 21 ``` provisionally, to the 2nd respondent from the date of filing of this appeal and continue to pay till the disposal of this appeal. 10. We have been informed that the husband has not even complied with the same. In these circumstances, the wife and children had no other option but to seek the attachment of the account number available with them. This is precisely what has been done as evident from the contents of the averments and Annexures in O.P.(FC)No.494/2023. As regards the enhancement of compensation, we are of the view that the son has already attained majority but the daughter has been awarded maintenance of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) till she marries. The said compensation in our view is not sufficient to meet the expenses, thus we deem it appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) keeping in view the financial status of the father/husband. 11. As an upshot of our findings, we do not deem it appropriate to set aside judgment and decree dated 30.05.2022 ``` OP(FC)NO.494/2023 & Mat.Appeal Nos.132/2023, 708/2022 ``` ``` 22 ``` passed in O.P.(others)No. 466/2023 in Mat. Appl.No.708/2022 and lift the attachment order in O.P.(FC)No.494/2023. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/(Rupees twenty five thousand only) each to be paid to the appellants in Mat.Appl.No.132/2023 ie., wife and children. Mat. A.No.132/2023 is allowed; the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2022 passed in O.P.No.466/2017 is modified to the extent that the daughter will be entitled to maintenance of Rs.25,000/(Rupees twenty five thousand only) instead of Rs.15,000/(Rupees fifteen thousand only) till she gets married and condition No.3 imposed in the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2022 is ordered to be deleted. Sd/- ## **AMIT RAWAL JUDGE** Sd/- **C.S. SUDHA JUDGE** nak ``` OP(FC)NO.494/2023 & Mat.Appeal Nos.132/2023, 708/2022 ``` ``` 23 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 494/2023`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit 1THE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 30.5.2022 IN OP(OTHERS) NO.466/2017 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA ``` ``` Exhibit P2THE COPY OF E.A NO.100/2022 DATED 26.9.2022 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3/DECREE HOLDERS UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 46 TO ATTACH THE FIXED DEPOSIT IN E.P NO.26/2022 ``` - `Exhibit P3 THE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 12.1.2023 IN I.A NO.1/2023 IN MAT APPEAL NO.708/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT` - `Exhibit P4 THE COPY OF E.A NO.23/2023 IN E.P NO.26/2023 DATED 13.2.2023 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA` - `Exhibit P5 THE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 TO E.A NO.23/2023 DATED 6.3.2023` - `Exhibit P6 THE COPY OF TERM DEPOSIT IN THE JOINT NAME OF THE PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15.9.2022` - `Exhibit P7 THE COPY OF TERM DEPOSIT IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.9.2022` ``` Exhibit P8THE COPY OF ORDER DATED 8.6.2023 IN E.A NO.23/2023 IN E.P NO.26/2022 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA ``` ``` OP(FC)NO.494/2023 & Mat.Appeal Nos.132/2023, 708/2022 ``` ``` 24 ``` ``` Exhibit P9THE COPY OF ORDER DATED 21.6.2023 IN E.A NO.100/2022 IN E.P NO.26/2022 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA ``` ``` Exhibit P10THE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 2.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA IN E.P NO.26/2022 UNDER ORDER XXI RULE 46 C.P.C ```