Sridharan v Rekha

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Amit Rawal
C. S. Sudha
Judgment Date: 2023-12-13
Court Decision / Holding: This order disposes of two original petitions. Without commenting on the merits, the Court relegates the matter to the trial court to decide the case of interim maintenance qua the claim of the wife and the minor children uninfluenced by the order already passed by this Court. In the meantime, the husband will continue to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as per the interim order of this Court. Trial Court will decide the application as expeditiously as possible within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. Petitions stand disposed off.
Final Disposition: Petitions stand disposed off.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sridharan
Rekha Sridharan

Respondents

Rekha Sridharan
Anamika Sridharan
Abhishek Sridharan
Sridharan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• R. Sreehari
• P. Jayaram
• P. B. Ajoy
• K. R. Paul

Counsels for Respondents

• P. Jayaram
• R. Sreehari
• Hamza A.V.
• Vignesh S.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This joint order of the Kerala High Court disposes two original petitions filed under OP (FC) Nos. 601 of 2021 and 311 of 2023, challenging an interim maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Ottappalam. In OP (FC) 601/2021, Sridharan (the husband) challenged a Family Court order which rejected his objection to the wife’s maintenance but granted Rs. 8,000 per month to each of the two minor children, with no maintenance awarded to Rekha. In OP (FC) 311/2023, Rekha (the wife) sought substantial maintenance — Rs.30,000 per month for herself and Rs.25,000 for each child — asserting the husband earns about Rs.4,00,000 monthly, while the husband contends the wife is employed, reportedly earning around Rs.80,000 per month. The court notes that affidavits and income material were not thoroughly examined. Relying on Rajinesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the court states that the law on maintenance is settled and guidelines apply. Without deciding merits, the court relegates interim maintenance matters to the trial court, directing expeditious disposal and maintaining Rs.5,000 per month per child as interim maintenance until further orders. Petitions are disposed off with a direction to decide the interim maintenance issues promptly in the trial court.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Rajinesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Sridharan argued that the interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court for the children (Rs. 8,000 each) was high and the wife’s claimed maintenance was excessive; he contended the income evidence was not properly examined and questioned the basis of the wife’s claim, including affidavits that were not tested. He emphasized that he had been paying Rs. 5,000 per child under interim orders and urged re-examination of the husband’s financials and the appropriateness of the child maintenance. He sought a reconsideration of the wife’s maintenance claim and questioned the non-maintenance pension/education allowances to the children.

Contentions of Respondents

Rekha sought substantial maintenance, claiming the husband’s income is about Rs. 4,00,000 per month, and that her own potential income or needs justify Rs. 30,000 for herself and Rs. 25,000 for each child. She argued that the interim maintenance must be revised in light of her needs and the children’s needs, and that the court should evaluate the true financial position of the husband. She relied on appropriate guidelines for maintenance, challenging the older order that favored the children’s maintenance while denying hers.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajinesh v. Neha	(2021) 2 SCC 324	Positive	The judgment relies on the guidelines laid down in Rajinesh v. Neha for maintenance, treating it as settled law that informs the current decision.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL`** ## **`&`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1945 OP (FC) NO. 601 OF 2021 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IA 3/2020 IN OP 688/2020 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, OTTAPALAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:`** ``` SRIDHARAN AGED 52 YEARS S/O RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, MADATHIL HOUSE, (SREYAS) PARUTHOOR AMSOM AND POST, CHERUKUDANGAD DESOM, PALLIPPURAM, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 305. ``` ``` BY ADV R.SREEHARI ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1REKHA AGED 44 YEARS D/O ACHUTHA MENON, ARCHANA, TRITHALA, MALA AMSOM DESOM AND POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 305. ``` ``` 2ANAMIKA SRIDHARAN, AGED 16 YEARS (MINOR), STUDENT , D/O REKHA, ARCHANA, MALA AMSOM DESOM AND POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 534 ``` ``` 3ABHISHEK SRIDHARAN, AGED 12 YEARS (MINOR), STUDENT , S/O REKHA, ARCHANA, TRITHALA,MALA AMSOM DESOM AND POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 534 (*2 AND 3 MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER REKHA D/O ACHUTHA MENON, ARCHANA, TRITHALA, MALA AMSOM DESOM AND POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 534) ``` ``` BY ADV P.JAYARAM ``` ``` OP (FC) Nos.601/2021, 311/2023 ``` **==> picture [21 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ``` THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.12.2023, ALONG WITH OP (FC).311/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` OP (FC) Nos.601/2021, 311/2023 ``` ``` -3- ``` # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` ``` OP (FC) NO. 311 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2021 IN I.A.NO.3/2020 IN OP NO.688/2020 OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPPALAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PETITIONER:`** ``` REKHA SRIDHARAN AGED 44 YEARS D/O ACHUTHA MENON, ARCHANA, THRITHALA, P.O. MALA, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 679534 ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.JAYARAM P.B.AJOY K.R.PAUL ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:`** ``` SRIDHARAN AGED 53 YEARS S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, SREYAS, PARUTHOOR, CHERUKUDANGAD, P.O. PARUTHOOR, PALLIPURAM, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 679312 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SREEHARI R HAMZA A.V.(K/1588/2022) VIGNESH S.(K/3697/2022) ``` ``` OP (FC) Nos.601/2021, 311/2023 ``` **==> picture [21 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ``` THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.12.2023, ALONG WITH OP (FC).601/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` OP (FC) Nos.601/2021, 311/2023 ``` ``` -5- ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** ## **`[OP (FC) Nos.601/2021, 311/2023]`** ## **`AMIT RAWAL, J.`** 1. This order shall dispose of two original petitions. Order dated 06.11.2021 in I.A.No.3 of 2020 in O.P.No.688 of 2020 of the Family Court, Ottappalam whereby the claim of wife for maintenance has been rejected and children have been allowed at the rate of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight thousand only) each per month, has been challenged by the husband by filing OP(FC) No.601 of 2021 and the wife in OP(FC) No.311 of 2023. 2. Wife sought maintenance of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) per month for herself and Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty thousand only) per month each for the children on the ground that the husband is working and earning Rs.4,00,000/- per month. Per contra husband alleged that the wife is working in Royal Dental College and drawing Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty thousand only) per month. The Court without taking the affidavit of both sides and material on record regarding their income and salary ``` OP (FC) Nos.601/2021, 311/2023 ``` **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** certificate, ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/(Rupees Eight thousand only) each to the children and denied maintenance to the wife. 4. Learned counsel for the husband submits that the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight thousand only) each to the children towards their education was on a higher side and as per the interim order of this Court, has been paying Rs.5,000/- each, regularly, whereas on the other side, it is contended that no justiciable reasons have been assigned for denying the maintenance to the wife. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books. 6. The law with regard to payment of maintenance, in view of the following guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Rajinesh v. Neha,** (2021) 2 SCC 324, is no longer res integra. 7. Without commenting on the merits of the matter we relegate the matter to the trial court to decide the case of interim maintenance qua the claim of the wife and the minor ``` OP (FC) Nos.601/2021, 311/2023 ``` **==> picture [21 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** children uninfluenced with the order already passed by this Court. In the meantime, husband will continue to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as per the interim order of this Court. Trial Court will decide the application as expeditiously as possible within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. Petitions stand disposed off. Sd/- ## **`AMIT RAWAL JUDGE`** ## **`Sd/-`** ``` C.S. SUDHA JUDGE ``` vv ``` OP (FC) Nos.601/2021, 311/2023 ``` ``` -8- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 311/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** - `EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/11/2021 IN I.A.NO.3/2020 IN O.P.NO.688/2020 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT OTTAPALAM` - `EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION IN O.P. NO. 688/2020 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT OTTAPALAM` - `EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN I.A. NO. 3/2020 IN O.P.NO.688/2020, FAMILY COURT OTTAPALAM SEEKING INTERIM MAINTENANCE FROM THE RESPONDENTS` - `EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN I.A. NO.3/2020 IN O.P. NO. 688/2020, FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM` - `EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION IN I.A.NO.4/2022 IN O.P.NO. 688/2020, FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM` - `EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IN I.A.NO.4/2022 IN O.P. NO.688/2020, FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM` ``` OP (FC) Nos.601/2021, 311/2023 ``` ``` -9- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 601/2021`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** - `EXHIBIT P1 PHOTO COPY OF OP NO 688/2020 OF FAMILY COURT OTTAPALAM` ``` EXHIBIT P2PHOTO COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF IA 3/2020 IN OP 688/2020 OF FAMILY COURT OTTAPALM ``` - `EXHIBIT P3 PHOTO COPY OF OBJECTION FIELD IN IA 3/2020 IN OP 688/2020 OF FAMILY COURT OTTAPALAM` - `EXHIBIT P4 PHOTO COPY OF LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN IA 3/2020 IN OP 688/2020 OF FAMILY COURT OTTAPALAM` ``` EXHIBIT P5PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN IA 3/2020 IN OP 688/2020 OF FAMILY COURT OTTAPALM DATED 6.11.2021 ```