IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 476 of 2007() ----------------------------- MC.270/2005 of THE FAMILY COURT THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER IN M.C.: ----------------------------------------------------------------- DR.SURESHKUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS, ASOK BHAVAN, PARAVOOR P.O., PUNNAPRA PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SIDHARTHAN SRI.D.G.VIPIN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS IN M.C.: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. SINDHU.R., AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.LATE RAMACHANDRAN THANDAR, SANTHA MANDIRAM, MUTTATHUKONAM ELAVUMTHITTA P.O., KOZHANCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 2. RESHMA (MINOR), D/O.SINDHU, REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, SMT.SINDHU.R., SANTHA MANDIRAM, MUTTATHUKONAM, ELAVUMTHITTA P.O., KOZHANCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS FOR R1&2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ====================== R.P.(F.C) No.476 OF 2007 ====================== Dated this the 3rd day of March 2010. JUDGMENT This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court Thiruvalla in M.C.No.270/2005. The doctor husband is directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the wife and Rs. 2,000/- to the child. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard counsel for both sides. 3. Along with the memorandum of revision the order of the Family Court is produced whereby the Family Court has declared the marriage between the 1st petitioner and respondent in the M.C as null and void. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had taken the view that only when a person is legitimately married she would be entitled to claim as the wife of a person. The Supreme Court has considered the question regarding the entitlement of maintenance to a lady whose marriage is prohibited under R.P.(F.C) No.476 OF 2007 2 the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. Now, at any rate, the husband had approached the Court for declaration of the annulment of the marriage under Section 125 of Hindu Marriage Act and marriage had been declared as null and void. So the material available before the court is that the marriage has been annulled on account of petition filed by the husband and such annulment has taken effect from 15th October 2007 that is by virtue of the decree in O.P.No.684/2006. Since the marriage is declared as null and void by the court of a competent jurisdiction it will take effect only from the annulment of a the marriage and therefore the 1st petitioner will be entitled to claim maintenance from the date of petition till annulment of marriage by the Court. Since the marriage has been declared as void, the question of husband wife relationship does not exist. So the wife is not entitled to claim maintenance thereafter. Otherwise so far as 1st petitioner is concerned, the entitlement is from the date of petition till R.P.(F.C) No.476 OF 2007 3 15.10.2007. I do not want to disturb the quantum awarded therein and any amount paid or deposited shall be given credit to and only balance need be paid till that date mentioned. 4. Now the question is regarding the maintenance to the child. The child is certainly entitled to claim maintenance. The father is a doctor by profession. He had gone abroad and worked there. After he has returned he is working in a private hospital at Thodupuzha. He is a person who is well qualified and competent and therefore directing a person to make payment of Rs.2,000/- per month to his child as maintenance by any stretch of imagination can not be said on the higher side. Therefore that requires no interference. In the result, RPFC is disposed of making it clear that the wife is entitled to maintenance only from the date of maintenance petition till 15.10.2007 at the rate of Rs.2,500/- but the child is entitled to maintenance as R.P.(F.C) No.476 OF 2007 4 ordered by the Family Court. Any amount paid during the pendency of the proceedings has to be taken in to consideration and balance alone need be paid. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns