Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDismissed (with modification as to the start da...

V. Renjith Singh s/o Vincent vs Lima M.L. Balis

Case / Petition Number:RPFC.No.212/2015

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. Dias
Judgment Date
2020-02-14
Court Decision / Holding
The RP(F.C.) is dismissed. The impugned Family Court order is confirmed, but with modification that maintenance of Rs.5,000 per month is payable from 22.12.2014 onward; any interim payments made earlier are to be adjusted against arrears.
Final Disposition
Dismissed (with modification as to the start date of maintenance).

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • V. Renjith Singh s/o Vincent

Respondents

  • Lima M.L. Balis

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Gopakumar R. Thaliyal
  • • R.B. Rajesh

Counsels for Respondents

  • • G. Sudheer

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court revision petition (RPFC No.212/2015) against the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram's maintenance order in MC No.277/2011. The respondent-wife alleged the husband (a member of the Para-military force) neglected her and sought Rs.7,500 per month; the Family Court ultimately awarded Rs.5,000 per month from 18.11.2011. The petitioner challenged this order, contending the respondent is educated, employed, and has income from land, thus warranting little or no maintenance. He asserted the respondent deserted him without sufficient cause. The respondent adduced evidence including her own earnings and her status, while the petitioner’s salary was contested; the power-of-attorney holder for the petitioner’s income did not produce a salary certificate, and adverse inferences were drawn about the petitioner’s income. The District Court’s previous orders (restitution of conjugal rights and interim maintenance) were cited by the respondent to justify the maintenance amount. The High Court engaged a legal principle from a Supreme Court decision requiring explicit reasons for backdating maintenance from the date of application (noting the need for express justifications). It concluded that, since there was no express reasoning in the original order, the backdating should be limited to 22.12.2014, and that the petitioner was liable only for Rs.5,000 per month from that date. The revision petition was dismissed with this modification.

Provisions of Law Cited

null

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Express reasons are required by Magistrate/Family Court when granting maintenance from the date of application (as clarified in Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas v. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas and another, 2014 KHC 472(4)).
  • No double recovery: avoid requiring maintenance in two parallel proceedings without express justification for backdating.
  • Adopt 1/5th ratio of the salary for calculating maintenance (as applied by the Family Court in this case).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner contends that the Family Court erred by directing maintenance at Rs.5,000 per month, arguing that the respondent is educated, employed, and has means; he asserts the respondent deserted without sufficient cause and that the petitioner’s actual income (claimed Rs.25,000) has not been credibly established since no salary certificate was produced. He emphasizes that the order should not backdate maintenance to the petition date absent express reasons for doing so, and cites prior interim maintenance and the lack of salary proof as grounds to modify the order. He requests that liability commence from 22.12.2014 (the date of the impugned order) rather than from the petition date to avoid double liability in two proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent argues that a District Court decree for restitution of conjugal rights and an interim maintenance order of Rs.5,000 per month are in force, and that the applicant has the means to maintain her. She emphasizes her educational qualification and income as support for the maintenance claim. She maintains that the Family Court’s award is reasonable in light of the evidence and the prior adjudications, and that the petitioner’s salary evidence, though challenged, supports the net maintenance obligation. She contends the order should not be interfered with given the factual backdrop and prior orders.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas and another v. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas and another2014 KHC 472(4)PositiveCited to establish that Magistrate/Family Court must provide express reasons for backdating maintenance from the date of application; the current judgment relies on this principle to limit backdating to the later date and avoid double liability.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against V. Renjith Singh s/o Vincent vs Lima M.L. Balis and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

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** **FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941** ## **RPFC.No.212 OF 2015** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN M.C.NO.277/2011 DATED 22.12.2014 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:** **V.RENJITH SINGH S/O.VINCENT,MANCHUVILAI,CHENKODI(PO), MEKKODE VILLAGE,KALKULAM TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT,TAMIL NADU STATE, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, S.VINCENT,AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.LATE CHILUVAIMUTHU, RESIDING AT MANCHUVILAI,CHENKODI(P.O), MEKKODE VILLAGE, KALKULAM TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU STATE.** **BY ADVS. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.R.B.RAJESH** ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:** **LIMA M.L.BALIS D/O.JAYA MOHAN DAS, KADAYARAVILA VEEDU,THALACHAMVILA, VANYACODE,PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695502.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER** **THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** R.P.(F.C.)No.212/2015 2 ## **ORDER** The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.277 of 2011 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The respondent in this revision petition [in short 'R.P(F.C.)'] was the petitioner in the maintenance case (In short 'M.C.'). 2. The M.C. was filed by the respondent, inter alia, pleading as follows : She is the wife of the revision petitioner. Their marriage was solemnised on 6.9.2010. The revision petitioner has neglected to maintain her since 18.6.2011. She has no means for sustenance. She is living separately as she was ill-treated mentally and physically by the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner is employed in Special Security Bureau of Indian Paramilitary Force and is drawing a salary of Rs.25,000/- per mensem. He also has 3 Acres of rubber plantation, from which he earns Rs.2,500/- per day. He also has sufficient Bank balance. The respondent needs R.P.(F.C.)No.212/2015 3 an amount of Rs.7,500/- per mensem for her maintenance. 3. The revision petitioner resisted the M.C. He filed a written objection, _inter alia_ , contending as follows : He admitted the marriage. He denied the assertion that he neglected to maintain the respondent. According to him, the respondent is a postgraduate in science. She is employed and gets a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. She has landed properties and she gets an income of Rs.5,000/- per month from it. He admitted that he is employed as a soldier in Paramilitary Force, but he is drawing a salary of only Rs.10,000/- per month. He never manhandled or humiliated the respondent as alleged in the M.C. The respondent behaved in an improper manner towards his relatives. Despite mediation efforts made by the revision petitioner and his family members, the respondent was not ready for an approachment. On the other hand, she filed false complaints against the revision petitioner, and R.P.(F.C.)No.212/2015 4 unwarranted disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. He hence prayed the M.C. be dismissed. 4. The respondent was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 were marked through her. The power of attorney holder, the father of the revision petitioner, was examined as CPW1 and Exts.D1 to D4 were marked through him. 5. The Family Court, after considering the pleadings and evidence on record, allowed the M.C., in part, by directing the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.5,000/- from 18.11.2011, i.e., the date of petition. 6. It is challenging the above order that this R.P. (F.C.) is filed. 7. Heard Sri.Rahul representing Sri.Gopakumar.R. Thaliyal, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.G.Sudheer, the learned counsel for the respondent. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner R.P.(F.C.)No.212/2015 5 vehemently argued that the Family Court has gone wrong in directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent. According to him, the respondent has willfully deserted the revision petitioner without any sufficient reason or cause. Moreover, she is a post graduate and is well employed. Therefore, the order passed by the Family Court is erroneous and liable to be set aside. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the District Court, Nagarcoil has allowed O.P.No.102 of 2012 filed by the respondent against the revision petitioner and passed a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in her favour. The said order has become final. In addition to the said order, the District Court has also directed the revision petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. The said order is also in force. The District Court, after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that the R.P.(F.C.)No.212/2015 6 revision petitioner is in a position to maintain the respondent at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. The said amount ordered by the District Court is reasonable. Taking into consideration all the above aspects, the Family Court has passed the impugned order by directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. He prayed that the R.P.(F.C.) be dismissed. 10. The marriage between the parties is admitted by the revision petitioner. It is also on record that the District Court, Nagarcoil in O.P.No.102 of 2012 has passed a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The revision petitioner’s contention that the respondent is living separately from him without sufficient cause, therefore, cannot be accepted. The finding of the civil court is to the contrary. It is the specific case of the respondent that the revision petitioner is drawing a salary R.P.(F.C.)No.212/2015 7 of Rs.25,000/- per month. The revision petitioner did not mount the box and give evidence. He also did not produce his salary certificate. His power of attorney holder was totally ignorant about his income. Hence, adverse inference is to be drawn against the revision petitioner as far as his salary is concerned. Thus, the assertion of the respondent that the revision petitioner is getting a salary of Rs.25,000/- is to be accepted. 11. Then the sole question to be considered is whether the amount awarded by the Family Court at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per mensem is reasonable and moderate. 12. Going by the finding that the revision petitioner is drawing a salary of Rs.25,000/-, adopting the 1/5[th] ratio, the Family Court has granted the respondent maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.5,000/-. The said order cannot be said to be unreasonable or extortionate. Moreover, the District Court in the previous litigation between the parties has ordered Rs.5,000/- as R.P.(F.C.)No.212/2015 8 interim maintenance to be paid to the respondent. The said order is in force and is being complied with by the revision petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Family Court at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. 13. The next question to be considered is whether the Family Court was justified in directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance allowance to the respondent from the date of petition onwards without any express order or reason. The Honourable Supreme Court in **Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas and another v. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas and another [2014** **KHC 472(4** ) **]** has declared the law that the Magistrate/Family Court has to assign specific reasons while granting maintenance from the date of application. Express reason is conspicuously absent in the impugned order. Moreover, it is seen that the revision petitioner was paying interim maintenance as per the order of the District is Court in I.A.No.146 of 2012 at the rate of R.P.(F.C.)No.212/2015 9 Rs.5,000/- per mensem. Hence the order of the Family Court directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance from the date of petition is against law declared by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, as it does not contain any express reason, and the revision petitioner need not pay the same amount in two proceedings to the respondent. 14. In the abovesaid circumstances, I am of the considered view that the revision petitioner is only liable to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per mensem to the respondent from the date of order i.e., 22.12.2014. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Family Court in M.C.No.277 of 2011 is confirmed, but with the modification that the revision petitioner shall be liable to pay maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per mensem only from 22.12.2014. If the revision petitioner has paid any amount as directed by the interim order of this court, the same shall be taken into account while calculating the total arrears of R.P.(F.C.)No.212/2015 10 maintenance payable by the revision petitioner to the respondent. With the above observations, the R.P.(F.C.) is dismissed. **Sd/-** **C.S.DIAS** **JUDGE** **csl**