Suni v. Sandhyamol and others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2023-10-30
Court Decision / Holding: The revision petition is devoid of any merits and is consequently dismissed. The High Court upholds the Family Court order directing maintenance: Rs. 7,000 to the wife and Rs. 3,000 to each of the two children per month from 26.02.2016. Any interim payments already deposited shall be adjusted against arrears. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Family Court for further proceedings.
Final Disposition: Dismissed; maintenance order of the Family Court maintained; arrears adjustments if interim amounts were deposited.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Suni

Respondents

Sandhyamol
Ashil S.S
Ashmi S.S

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Latheesh Sebastian

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Abdul Rasheed

Case Synopsis & Summary

This case concerns a revision petition under Section 125 CrPC filed by Suni challenging a Family Court Nedumangad order in MC 95/2016 directing maintenance to his wife Sandhyamol and two minor children. The respondents alleged that Suni deserted them on 13.04.2013; the wife is employed as a teacher, and the children are school-going. The Family Court had fixed maintenance at Rs. 7,000 for the wife and Rs. 3,000 for each child per month from the petition date (26.02.2016), based on the petitioner’s status as a Gulf-based heavy vehicle driver with substantial earnings (claimed Rs. 1,00,000 per month) and agricultural income of Rs. 5,000, while the wife and children allegedly have limited means. Suni contended that the wife’s income is higher (Rs. 13,500 per month) and that his own earnings have collapsed to about Rs. 350 per day after returning from the Gulf, along with loss of conjugal relations. The High Court, after noting the husband’s past earnings and the children’s needs, concluded that the Family Court rightly fixed Rs. 13,000 per month in total maintenance, and found no illegality in the order. Citing Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, the court affirmed the obligation to maintain dependants and upheld the maintenance balance. The petition was dismissed, keeping the Family Court order in force.

Provisions of Law Cited

Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureSec.19(4) of the Family Courts Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Duty of a husband to maintain his wife and children
An able-bodied person is bound to maintain his wife and children

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner contends that the wife is employed as a teacher and earns around Rs. 13,500 per month; after returning from the Gulf, the petitioner is driving an auto-rickshaw and earns about Rs. 350 per day. He argues that the Family Court has erred in fixing Rs. 13,000 per month total maintenance without adequate evidence of his present capacity and that there was no material proving an incorrigible inability of the wife and children to maintain themselves. He asserts that the court should consider his reduced earnings and attempt at cohabitation before upholding such a quantum.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents assert that Suni deserted them in 2013 and that the wife is left with the responsibility to support two children. They rely on the Family Court order fixing maintenance at Rs. 13,000 per month in total, arguing that Suni’s previous Gulf earnings demonstrated substantial means and that his current income as an auto-rickshaw driver does not diminish his obligation to maintain the wife and children. They emphasize the children’s education and needs and the wife’s lack of independent financial security.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg	2022 LiveLaw SC 805	Positive	Cited to reinforce the principle that an able-bodied husband has a duty to maintain his wife and children.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

1 RP(FC)No.436 of 2016 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ``` RPFC NO. 436 OF 2016 ``` ## **`AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 95/2016 OF FAMILY COURT,`** ## **`NEDUMANGAD`** ## **`REVISION PETITIONER/S:`** ``` SUNI,AGED 39 YEARS S/O DAMODARAN, PORUVILA HOUSE,PONGANADU, AAROOR (MULAKKALATHUKAVU P.O.),KILIMANOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1SANDHYAMOL,D/O SOBHANA, AGED 33 YEARS, SANTHIL BHAVAN,VELLINJAKKUZHI, KODITHOOKIYA KUNNU P.O.,ANAKUDI MURI, KALLARA VILLAGE. 2ASHIL S.S,D/O SUNI, AGED 11 YEARS (MINOR), SANTHIL BHAVAN, VELLINJAKKUZHI, KODITHOOKIYA KUNNU P.O., ANAKUDI MURI, KALLARA VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,SANDHYA MOL, DO..DO..DO.. 3ASHMI S.S. D/O SUNI, AGED 7 YEARS (MINOR),SANTHIL BHAVAN, VELLINJAKKUZHI, KODITHOOKIYA KUNNU P.O., ANAKUDI MURI, KALLARA VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,SANDHYA MOL, DO..DO..DO.. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.M.ABDUL RASHEED ``` ``` THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 RP(FC)No.436 of 2016 **C. S. DIAS, J. ------------------------RP(FC)No.436 of 2016 ------------------------Dated this the 30[th] day of October, 2023 ORDER** The revision petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Family Court, Nedumangad in M.C No.95/2016 directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance allowance to the respondents. The revision petitioner was the respondent and the respondents were the petitioners before the Family Court. 2. The respondents – the wife and children of the revision petitioner – had filed the application against the revision petitioner under Sec.125 of the Code of 3 RP(FC)No.436 of 2016 Criminal Procedure ( for short, ‘Code’) for an order of maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.4,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively. They had averred in the application that the first respondent was married to the revision petitioner on 22.8.2004 and in their wedlock the second respondent was born on 1.11.2005 and the third respondent was born on 14.1.2010. The revision petitioner had deserted the respondents since 13.4.2013. The first respondent is unemployed. The revision petitioner is employed as a heavy vehicle driver in the Gulf and is earning a monthly income of Rs.1,00,000/-. He also has a monthly agricultural income of Rs.5,000/-. Despite having sufficient means, the revision petitioner has refused to maintain the respondents. Hence, the application. 4 RP(FC)No.436 of 2016 3. The revision petitioner filed a written objection admitting his marriage with the first respondent and the paternity of the respondents 2 and 3. However, he contended that the first respondent is employed as a Teacher in a private school and a parallel college, and is getting a monthly income of Rs.13,500/-. The revision petitioner has returned from the Gulf and is presently working as an auto-rickshaw driver and is getting only a daily income of Rs.350/-. The first respondent is living separately from the revision petitioner without any sufficient cause. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 4. In the trial, the first respondent was examined as PW1 and Exts P1 to P4 were marked on her side, and the 5 RP(FC)No.436 of 2016 revision petitioner was examined as CPW1 and Exts R1 to R5 were marked in evidence. 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 first respondent monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.7,000/- and the respondents 2 and 3, monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.3,000/- each from the date of petition (26.2.2016). 6. Assailing the said order, the present revision petition is filed. 7. Heard; Sri.Latheesh Sebastian, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri.Abdul Rasheed, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6 RP(FC)No.436 of 2016 8. Is there or any illegality, impropriety irregularity in the impugned order? 9. The revision petitioner admits his marriage with the first respondent and the paternity of the respondents 2 and 3. 10. The respondents’ case is that the revision petitioner deserted them since 13.4.2013. Although the revision petitioner has the contention that the first respondent is living separately from him without any sufficient cause, there is no material on record to prove that he has taken any effort to resume cohabitation or initiate proceedings to seek for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. Thus, the said contention has to necessarily fail. 7 RP(FC)No.436 of 2016 11. Therefore, the only point that emanates is whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court is justifiable or not. 12. Admittedly, the revision petitioner is a driver by profession. He has conceded that he is presently working as an auto-rickshaw driver and earning a daily income of Rs.350/-. 13. The respondents have a case that the revision petitioner is a heavy vehicle driver and was employed in the Gulf and drawing a salary of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. To substantiate their assertion, they confronted and marked Ext R2 letter submitted by the revision petitioner to his employer on 6.4.2011, for enhancement of his basic salary from Omani riyal 90 to 160, wherein he has stated that he is a heavy vehicle driver. Therefore, 8 RP(FC)No.436 of 2016 it is proved that the revision petitioner was employed abroad and is a heavy vehicle driver. Although the revision petitioner has a case that the first respondent is a Teacher in a private school and a parallel college, there is no material to substantiate his bald assertion. 14. It is undisputed that the respondents 2 and 3 were born on 1.11.2005 and 14.1.2010, respectively, and are school going children. 15. It is trite law that an able-bodied person is bound to maintain his wife and children [read **Anju Garg vs. Deepak Kumar Garg** (2022 LiveLaw SC 805) ]. 16. On a consideration of the status, qualification and the fact that the revision petitioner was a heavy vehicle driver working in Oman and that the respondents have no proven means to maintain themselves, I am 9 RP(FC)No.436 of 2016 definitely of the view that the Family Court has rightly fixed the quantum of maintenance @ 13,000/- per month. 17. I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Family Court warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the discretionary powers under Sec.19(4) of the Family Courts Act. 18. The revision petition is devoid of any merits and is hence, consequentially dismissed. Needless to mention, if at all the revision petitioner has deposited any amount before the Family Court, pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, he is entitled for adjustment of the said amount while calculating the arrears of maintenance. 10 RP(FC)No.436 of 2016 The Registry is directed to forward a copy of the order to the Family Court for further proceedings. sd/- sks/30.10.23 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE