Sudhadevi and Sujitha Sajeevkumar v. Sajeev Kumar

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2020-01-14
Court Decision / Holding: The impugned order denying maintenance to the first petitioner is set aside; the respondent is directed to pay Rs 1,000 per month to the first revision petitioner as maintenance from 6.3.2006 onwards; the RP(FC) is allowed accordingly.
Final Disposition: RP(FC) allowed accordingly.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sudhadevi
Sujitha Sajeevkumar

Respondents

Sajeev Kumar

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri U.K. Devidas

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri K.P. Mujeeb

Case Synopsis & Summary

Revision petition under the Family Courts Act challenges the Family Court, Manjeri's MC 408/2005 maintenance order. The petitioners, Sudhadevi and her minor daughter Sujitha Sajeevkumar, contend that the court partly allowed maintenance for the child but denied maintenance to the wife on the ground that she possesses 3.45 acres of land assigned by her father (Ext D1), which allegedly yields income. The respondent, Sajeev Kumar, is alleged to have subjected the wife to matrimonial cruelty and to have remarried; he claims to earn about Rs 300 per day as a marble-laying worker and that the wife has some income from employment and a share in property. The Family Court held that the wife’s maintenance claim could be discarded due to land ownership. The High Court, citing Sunita Kachwaha and other decisions (Minakshi Gaur, Shailaja Khobbanna), held that a wife’s earnings do not bar maintenance and that a wife is entitled to maintenance to live in the same standard of living as her husband. The court set aside the impugned order, directing the respondent to pay Rs 1,000 per month to the first petitioner from the date of the Family Court order (6.3.2006). The revision petition is allowed, thereby ensuring maintenance for the wife despite the asset possession.

Provisions of Law Cited

Sec. 19(4) of the Family Courts ActSec. 401 of the Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

A wife’s earnings do not automatically negate the requirement of maintenance (Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha)
An employed wife is entitled to maintenance to live in the same standard of living as her husband (Minakshi Gaur v. Chitranjan Gaur; Shailaja v. Khobbanna)
Income from property must be proven; mere ownership or possession of land does not establish income.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioners contend that the wife is entitled to maintenance irrespective of her earnings or property. They challenge the Family Court’s denial of maintenance to the first petitioner on the ground that Ext D1 shows 3.45 acres of land. They rely on Supreme Court rulings that a wife’s earnings do not bar maintenance and that a wife is entitled to live in the same standard of living as her husband, irrespective of her income or property, and seek maintenance for the wife.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contends the wife left the matrimonial home voluntarily and has some income; he disputes the maintenance claim, asserts his limited earnings (Rs 70-80 per day as a hawker, later claimed as marble-laying work), and notes the wife has a share in property. He argues the Family Court’s denial was justified.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha	AIR 2015 SC 554	Positive	SC held that a wife’s earnings do not automatically defeat maintenance claims.
Minakshi Gaur v. Chitranjan Gaur	AIR 2009 SC 1377	Positive	SC held that an employed wife is entitled to maintenance to live in the same standard of living.
Shailaja and another v. Khobbanna	AIR 2017 SC 1174	Positive	SC held that an employed wife is entitled to maintenance to live in the same standard of living as the husband.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

1 RP(FC) 98 OF 2014 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 24TH POUSHA, 1941** **RPFC.No.98 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 408/2005 DATED 06-03-2006 OF FAMILY COURT, MANJERI** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **1 SUDHADEVI AGED 33 YEARS D/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR (LATE), KARUKARA HOUSE, POTHUKAL, BHOODANAM P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **2 SUJITHA SAJEEVKUMAR AGED 6 YEARS MINOR, D/O.SAJEEVKUMAR, REPRESENTED BY THE GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST REVISION PETITIONER.** **BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **SAJEEV KUMAR AGED 36 YEARS S/O.P.K.MANI, PUTHANPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.MUNDERI, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB** **THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 RP(FC) 98 OF 2014 ## **ORDER** The revision petitioners are the petitioners in M.C No.408/2005 on the file of the Family Court, Manjeri. The respondent in this revision petition (R.P(FC)) was the respondent in the Maintenance Case (M.C). 2. The revision petitioners had filed the M.C, inter alia, contending as follows: The first revision petitioner was married the respondent on 26.8.1999. In the wedlock, the second revision petitioner was born. The respondent treated the first revision petitioner with matrimonial cruelty compelling her to leave the matrimonial home. The respondent is said to have married another lady named Soumya. The first revision petitioner has no source of income or employment. The respondent is working as the Marble laying worker at Bangalore. He earns an income of Rs 300/- per day. The revision petitioners require an amount of Rs 2,000/- each, per month for 3 RP(FC) 98 OF 2014 their maintenance. 3. The respondent resisted the M.C. He admitted the marriage as well as the paternity of the child. He denied the allegation that he and his family illtreated the first revision petitioner. According to him, the first revision petitioner left the matrimonial home on her own volition, and is living separately without any sufficient reason or cause. He denied the allegation that he was working as a Marble laying worker. He admitted that he was only working as a hawker in Kusal Nagar at Bangalore and was earning only an amount of Rs 70/- - 80/- per day. He also contended that the first revision petitioner has a share in her family property extending to 3 ½ acres. She is employed as an advertisement agent and she is getting income from her employment. 4. The first revision petitioner was examined as PW1 and the respondent was examined as RW1. Ext P1 was marked through PW1 and Ext D1 was marked through RW1. 4 RP(FC) 98 OF 2014 5. The Family Court by the impugned order dated 6.3.2006 partly allowed the M.C by directing the respondent to pay maintenance to the second revision petitioner at the rate of Rs 600/- per month from the date of petition. The first revision petitioner's claim for maintenance was disallowed on the ground that as per Ext D1 her father has assigned 3 ½ acres of land in her name. In the said property, the first revision petitioner was having cultivation, and that the income derived from the property was sufficient for her maintenance. 6. It is challenging that portion of the order disallowing the first revision petitioner's claim for maintenance that this RP(FC) is filed. 7. Heard Sri.U.K.Devidas, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.K.P.Mujeeb, the learned counsel for the respondent. 8. It is settled law as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sunita Kachwaha vs Anil Kachwaha [AIR 2015 SC 554]** that even if the wife 5 RP(FC) 98 OF 2014 is earning some amount, it is not a ground to reject her application for maintenance. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Minakshi Gaur vs Chitranjan Gaur [AIR 2009 SC 1377]** and **in Shailaja and another vs Khobbanna [AIR 2017** **SC 1174)** has also held that even an employed wife is entitled to maintenance from her husband to live in the same status and standard of living as to that of her husband. 10. In the case on hand, the Family Court has rejected the claim of the first revision petitioner only on the ground that, as per Ext D1 assignment deed, she is in possession of 3.45 acres of land, which was assigned in her favour by her father. The respondent did not prove the fact that the first revision petitioner is deriving income from the property. The Family Court ignoring the law declared by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, on the sole ground that the first revision petitioner is having 3.45 acres of land, disallowed the revision petitioner's claim for 6 RP(FC) 98 OF 2014 maintenance. 11. The course adopted by the Family Court in rejecting the claim of the first revision petitioner for maintenance is irregular and improper. The Family Court ought to have considered the law declared by the Supreme Court, before arriving at the aforesaid conclusion. 12. In light of the law declared in the aforesaid decisions, and also considering the fact that the respondent has no case that the first revision petitioner is deriving any income from the property. I am constrained to hold the impugned order passed by the Family Court is erroneous and unsustainable in law. 13. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court under Sec.19(4) of the Family Courts Act read with Sec.401 of the Cr.P.C, I set aside the impugned order passed by the Family Court disallowing the claim of the first revision petitioner for maintenance. 7 RP(FC) 98 OF 2014 14. Considering the status and standard of living of the respondent, I direct the respondent to pay an amount of Rs 1,000/- per month to the first revision petitioner as the monthly maintenance allowance from the date of order of the Family Court, i.e. from 6.3.2006 onwards. This RP(FC) is allowed accordingly. **Sd/-** Sks/16.1.2020 **C.S.DIAS JUDGE** 8 RP(FC) 98 OF 2014 ## **APPENDIX** ## **REVISION PETITIOENRS ANNEXURES** **A- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.3.2006 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT IN M.C. 408/2005.** ## **RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES** ## **NIL**