S. Kalyana Krishnan v. B. Sunitha

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2023-11-02
Court Decision / Holding: The revision petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. The Court upheld the Family Court’s order directing the revision petitioner to pay the respondent Rs.5,000 per month in addition to the Rs.3,000 already awarded under the DV Act. Interim deposits, if any, are to be adjusted against the arrears, and if there is any change in circumstances, Section 127 CrPC may be invoked.
Final Disposition: Revision petition dismissed; maintenance order confirmed; adjust arrears with interim deposits; possible Section 127 consideration for future changes

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

S. Kalyana Krishnan S/o Sathyanesan

Respondents

B. Sunitha

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri R.T. Pradeep
• Smt. M. Bindudas

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Brejitha Unnikrishnan
• Smt. K.R. Rija

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court revision petition under Section 125 CrPC challenges a Family Court order directing the revision petitioner to pay an additional maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month to the respondent, over and above Rs. 3,000 already awarded by the Judicial First Class Magistrate under the Domestic Violence Act. The respondent had claimed Rs. 10,000 per month, arguing incapacity to maintain herself and her mentally challenged son, while the petitioner contended his net salary is only Rs. 5,729 per month (even though salary records suggest higher earnings). The Family Court examined the pleadings and available records, including Ext. R2 showing a higher net salary of Rs. 34,395, and held that, taking into account the parties’ status and change of circumstances, an additional Rs. 5,000 per month was warranted in light of Rajnesh v. Neha and another. The Supreme Court of India’s guidance on cross-proceeding maintenance under different statutes was applied to adjust the quantum in the ongoing proceedings. The court ultimately dismissed the revision petition, upholding the Family Court’s order. It directed adjustments against any interim deposits and noted that if circumstances change, Section 127 CrPC could be invoked. The decision is rendered by a Single Judge, Justice C.S. Dias.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1964

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Overlapping maintenance principle
Rajnesh v. Neha and another (2020) 6 KHC 1 – adjustment/set-off of amounts across proceedings

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner challenges the Family Court’s enhanced maintenance and contends his actual earnings are limited to a net salary of Rs.5,729 (as per Ext. R2), despite marked higher salary entries suggested by the record. He argues that Rs.3,000 already ordered under the DV Act and Rs.2,000 towards a loan must be considered, and that the quantum of Rs.5,000 is excessive given his financial capacity and standard of living. He relies on Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) to argue that maintenance should be adjusted across proceedings and not exceeded without just cause.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent sought additional maintenance beyond the DV order, arguing a genuine need given financial constraints and the petitioner’s income; the Family Court’s order for an additional Rs.5,000 was premised on the change in circumstances and the petitioner’s income, aligning with the Rajnesh principle of cross-proceeding adjustment to determine the appropriate quantum.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajnesh v. Neha and another	2020 (6) KHC 1	Positive	Court applied the Rajnesh principle on overlapping maintenance across proceedings and the adjustment of amounts/quantums within the ongoing proceedings.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1945** **RPFC NO. 328 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 11/2012 OF FAMILY** **COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:** S.KALYANA KRISHNAN S/O.SATHYANESAN, ADAVILAKOM VEEDU, ARAYOOR, MARIAPURAM, CHENKAL VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SMT.M.BINDUDAS ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:** B.SUNITHA, D/O.SAROJINI, THRIKKETA, ELAVANGAM, KANNARAVILA, NELLIMOOD P.O., ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA - 695 524. BY ADVS. SMT.BREJITHA UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.K.R.RIJA THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **RPFC NO. 328 OF 2016** **2** ## **O R D E R** The revision petition is filed assailing the order passed in M.C.No.11/2012 of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, directing the revision petitioner to pay the respondent monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.5000/- in addition to the maintenance allowance of Rs.3,000/- ordered by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Neyyattinkara. The revision petitioner was the respondent and the respondent was the petitioner before the Family Court. ## **Brief facts:** 2. The respondent had filed the above application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (‘Code’, for the sake of brevity), against the revision petitioner, seeking monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.10,000/-. It was her case that, she was married to the revision petitioner on 30.10.2005. Even though the revision petitioner was **RPFC NO. 328 OF 2016** **3** working as an Additional Sub Inspector of Police and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.25,000/-, he has wilfully refused to maintain the respondent. The respondent is unable to maintain herself. Moreover, her son is a mentally challenged person. Hence, the application. 3. The revision petitioner filed a written objection refuting the allegations in the application. It was his defence that, he was already paying Rs.2,000/- towards the instalment for a loan availed by her and is also paying Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance. The respondent does not require Rs.10,000/- for her maintenance. The revision petitioner is only drawing a net salary of Rs.5,729/- per month. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 4. In the trial, the respondent was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked through her in evidence. The revision petitioner was examined as CPW1 and Exts.R1 to R3 were proved through him. **RPFC NO. 328 OF 2016** **4** 5. The Family Court, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned order, partly allowed the application by directing the revision petitioner to pay the respondent monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.5,000/-, in addition to the Rs.3,000/- monthly maintenance awarded by the jurisdictional Magistrate in an application filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 6. It is assailing the said order; the revision petition is filed. 7. Heard; Sri.R.T.Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Smt.Brejitha Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 8. Is there any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order? 9. Indisputably, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Neyyattinkara has already allowed an application filed by the respondent invoking the **RPFC NO. 328 OF 2016** **5** Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and ordered the revision petitioner to pay the respondent monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.3,000/-. The said order has attained finality. 10. The revision petitioner does not dispute his marriage with the respondent. He also has no case that the respondent was employed. Although he admitted that he was working as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, his defence is that he is only drawing a monthly net salary of Rs.5,729/-. 11. It is subsequent to the said order that the respondent filed the present application under Section 125 of the Code, seeking additional monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.10,000/-. 12. Even though the revision petitioner contended that he has only a net salary of Rs.5,729/-, Ext.R2 salary slip proves that the revision petitioner was drawing a net salary of Rs.34,395/-. 13. It is taking into account the revision **6** **RPFC NO. 328 OF 2016** petitioner's status and the standard of living, particularly his salary, the Family Court ordered the revision petitioner to pay the respondent an monthly allowance @ Rs.5,000/-. 14. Therefore, the sole point is whether the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Family Court is reasonable or not. 15. Dealing with overlapping of maintenance allowance, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark decision in **Rajnesh v. Neha and another** [2020 (6) KHC 1] has succinctly held that, where successive claims of maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the court should consider an adjustment/set off of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceedings. If the order passed in the previous proceedings requires any modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same proceedings. **RPFC NO. 328 OF 2016** **7** 16. In the case on hand, the Family Court has clearly found that the respondent requires an additional maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month from what was ordered by the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the Family Court, after taking into account all factors including the earlier maintenance order and the change of circumstances, has directed the revision petitioner to pay the respondent an additional amount of Rs.5,000/-, which is in consonance with the law laid down in **Rajnesh** (supra). 17. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the pleadings and materials on record, I am of the definite view that there is no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act,1964. The revision petition is devoid of any merits and is hence, dismissed. Needless to mention, if the revision petitioner has deposited any amount, pursuant to the **8** **RPFC NO. 328 OF 2016** interim order passed by this Court, he would be entitled for adjustment in paying the arrears of maintenance payable as per the impugned order and further, if there is any change of circumstances, it would be up to the parties to invoke Section 127 of the Code. **Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** ma/2.11.2023