Prashob v. Prakasan (RPFC Nos. 286/2021 & 64/2022), High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Mary Joseph
Judgment Date: 2022-03-16
Court Decision / Holding: Revision petitions dismissed. The High Court held no compelling reason to set aside the Family Court’s order directing Rs. 4,500 per month maintenance, nor to enhance it, and thus affirmed the maintenance order and dismissed RPFC Nos. 286/2021 and 64/2022.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

PRASHOB
PRAKASAN

Respondents

PRAKASAN
PRASHOB

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri JOSEPH M.P.
• Sri RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
• Smt.K.VIJINA
• Sri ARUL MURALIDHARAN

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
• Smt.K.VIJINA
• (PRASHOB’s counsel not explicitly listed separately)

Case Synopsis & Summary

These revisions arise from an order of the Family Court, Tirur, dated 15.09.2021 in MC No.32/2018, directing maintenance of Rs. 4,500 per month to the respondent, who is the revision petitioner in RPFC 64/2022. The revision petitioner in RPFC 286/2021 contends that the family court erred in treating the revision petitioner as unable to maintain himself and in awarding maintenance to the respondent. The father, who is the revision petitioner in RPFC 64/2022, contends that Rs. 4,500 is on the lower side and should be enhanced, arguing that he deserted the petitioner years ago and is supporting a second family; he also asserts income of around Rs. 15,000 per month and health ailments, implying a genuine need for funds. The respondent in RPFC 286/2021 asserts that the petitioner deserted him 15 years back and is living with a second wife and child; Exts. P1–P10 and RW1–RW4 evidence show ailments and limited income, while the respondent notes the petitioner’s claimed assets are not sufficiently demonstrated. The court below found the petitioner unable to maintain himself, but noted that the respondent has a monthly income and a second family. It relied on Rajnesh v. Neha and another to consider the need for considering all sources of income. The Kerala High Court ultimately dismissed both revisions, upholding the Family Court’s maintenance order at Rs. 4,500 and declining to enhance it.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

PRASHOB contends that the order awarding maintenance to the respondent is improper, given that his father deserted him about 15 years ago, has a second family, and earns around Rs. 15,000 per month, with health ailments. He argues the court below misapprehended the evidence (Exts. P1–P10; RW1–RW4) and claims a higher standard of proof for incapacity to maintain oneself. He also points to the respondent’s alleged financial capacity and the lack of necessity for maintenance. He relies on Rajnesh v. Neha to emphasize considering all sources of income; He seeks setting aside or reducing the maintenance award and/or enhancement if warranted.

Contentions of Respondents

PRAKASAN (the father) argues that he deserted his son 15 years ago and has since maintained a second family; he asserts a monthly income around Rs. 15,000 and health issues, which justify support and sustenance. He contends the other family and his obligation to his mother reduce his ability to pay more; he disputes the sufficiency of evidence to prove the petitioner’s inability to maintain himself and challenges the quantum as inadequate, while urging the court to consider all sources of income (as per Rajnesh).

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajnesh v. Neha and another	2020 (6) KHC 1	Positive	Cited to emphasize that a maintenance assessment must consider all sources of the respondent’s income, including potential earnings from other sources.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1943 ``` ``` RPFC NO. 286 OF 2021 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.09.2021 IN M.C.NO.32/2018 OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR ``` ## `REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:` ``` PRASHOB, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.PRAKASAN, KARUKAYIL HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA POST, KOOTTAYI, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 562. ``` ``` BY ADV.SRI.JOSEPH M.P. ``` ## `RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:` ``` PRAKASAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. KUMAR, KARUKAYIL HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA POST, KOOTTAYI, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 562. ``` ``` BY ADVS.SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY SMT.K.VIJINA ``` ``` THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.03.2022, ALONG WITH RPFC.64/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` R.P(F.C)Nos.286/2021&64/2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1943 RPFC NO. 64 OF 2022 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.09.2021 IN M.C.NO.32/2018 OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR ``` ## `REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:` ``` PRAKASAN, S/O KUMAR, AGED 63 YEARS KARUKAYIL HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA POST, KOOTTAYI, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 562. BY ADVS. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY SRI.ARUL MURALIDHARAN SMT.K.VIJINA ``` ## `RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:` ``` PRASHOB, S/O PRAKASAN, AGED 29 YEARS, KARUKAYIL HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA POST, KOOTTAYI, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 562. ``` ``` THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.03.2022, ALONG WITH RPFC.286/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` R.P(F.C)Nos.286/2021&64/2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **`ORDER`** ## **`Dated this the 16[th] day of March, 2022`** These revisions are originated from an order passed by Family Court, Tirur (for short ‘the court below’) on 15.09.2021 in M.C.No.32/2018. 2. By the order, the court below has directed the revision petitioner in RP(FC) No.286/2021 to pay monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.4,500/- to the respondent herein who is the revision petitioner in RP(FC) No.64/2022. The grievance of the revision petitioner in RP(FC) No.286/2021 was that the monthly maintenance allowance was ordered in favour of a man who has deserted him sufficiently earlier in point of time. His father has also married another lady and has a son aged 12 years in that wedlock. According to him his father is maintaining a second family consisting of his wife and child and therefore cannot be said to be unable to maintain himself. According to him, the court below failed to appreciate ``` R.P(F.C)Nos.286/2021&64/2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` the above factums while finding him unable to maintain himself and ordering monthly maintenance allowance in his favour. 3. In RP(FC) No.64/2022, the revision petitioner is the father and his grievance was that Rs.4,500/- stands ordered in his favour by the order assailed is on the lower side and enhancement is required in the interest of justice. 4. The parties to the above revisions are referred to hereunder as the petitioner and the respondent in accordance with their status in M.C.No.32/2018. 5. This Court has noticed that both parties adduced evidence before the court below. The main ground taken by the petitioner before the court below was that he is aged 60 years and suffering from various ailments and therefore requires to get a reasonable sum as monthly maintenance allowance from the respondent. According to him, the respondent is employed as accountant in a jewellery namely ‘Pavan Gold’ at Tirur and has Rs.25,000/- as monthly income, but, he refused to maintain him. ``` R.P(F.C)Nos.286/2021&64/2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` 6. The contention of the respondent was that the father deserted him fifteen years back and is also maintaining a second family consisting of his new wife and a son born in that wedlock. Petitioner marked Exts.P1 to P10 in evidence which are medical documents wherefrom his ailments and treatment undergone for that, are established. 7. The contention of the respondent was that the petitioner deserted himself, his sisters and mother 15 years back and married secondly and is living with his second wife and a child aged 12 years. According to him, his mother filed a maintenance case against him and in that, monthly maintenance allowance was ordered by the court in her favour. According to him, the petitioner out of his grudge that the M.C on hand is filed, seeking monthly maintenance allowance for him. According to him, the petitioner is having sufficient income and is able to maintain not only himself, but also his second family and therefore, is not entitled to get monthly maintenance allowance from him. According to him he was getting only Rs.10,909/- as monthly income from ‘Pavan Gold’ and has to maintain his sisters and mother. Respondent examined himself ``` R.P(F.C)Nos.286/2021&64/2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` as RW1 and marked Exts.R1 to R4. 8. The claim of the petitioner that he is the father and is suffering from ailments are not disputed by the respondent. According to the respondent, petitioner is having bank balance and assets. According to him, the petitioner is living with his second wife and son. The factum was not neither admitted by the petitioner nor was established through evidence by the respondent. The respondent has no case that the petitioner was working and earning any income. No documents are forthcoming in evidence to establish the contention of respondent that the petitioner is having sufficient money in accounts maintained by him with any banks, investments in Fixed Deposit or income from properties held by him. Exts.P1 to P8 satisfactorily convince this Court that he is suffering from ailments of old age and is undergoing treatment for that. Therefore, the respondent failed to controvert the evidence tendered by the petitioner that he was unable to maintain himself for want of any income. Ext.R4 made available in evidence also discloses that the respondent is having a monthly income or Rs.15,000/-. One thing is made clear that the mother was also not maintained by ``` R.P(F.C)Nos.286/2021&64/2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` the respondent and therefore, she was constrained to approach the Family Court to obtain monthly maintenance allowance to sustain herself. Therefore, this Court is constrained to take a view that it was respondent who abandoned his father and refused him maintenance. 9. In the light of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is convinced that the petitioner was unable to maintain himself in his old age and needs money for his sustenance as well as treatment. It has been stated by the respondent that now he is compelled by an order passed by the court below to pay monthly maintenance allowance to his mother. His monthly income from his job alone is proved by Ext.R4 as Rs.15,000/-. His other sources of income are not disclosed by him by filing an affidavit as directed by the Apex Court in **Rajnesh vs. Neha and another** [2020 (6) KHC 1]. He was also not proved as a man devoid of health. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to set aside the order directing payment of monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.4,500/- to the petitioner. This Court is not inclined to enhance the monthly maintenance allowance from Rs.4,500/- as demanded by the petitioner in R.P(F.C) ``` R.P(F.C)Nos.286/2021&64/2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` No.64/2022 in the circumstances stand established by evidence. RP(FC) Nos.286/2021 and 64/2022 fail for the reasons, therefore are dismissed. ``` Sd/- ``` ``` MARY JOSEPH JUDGE ``` ## **`NAB`**