IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 Mat.Appeal.No. 271 of 2009() ---------------------------- OP.90/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- SIVAPRASAD, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUKUTTAN, PUTHANPURACKAL HOUSE, CHERUTHONI KARA, IDUKKI VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVASIA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. P.S.LAKSHMY, D/O.SIVAPRASAD, AGED 21 YEARS, PUTHANPURACKAL HOUE, IST MILE, VAZHOOR P.O., ANIKKAD VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. P.S.VISHNU, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.SIVAPRASAD, PUTHANPURACKAL HOUSE, IST MILE, VAZHOOR P.O., ANIKKAD VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. P.S.RAJALAKSHMY, MINOR, AGED 9 YEARS, D/O.SIVAPRASAD, REP. BY HER SISTER, THE IST PETITIONER, IST MILE, VAZHOOR P.O., ANIKKAD VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.R.REJI FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.B.BIPIN FOR R1 TO 3 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== MAT APPEAL NOS. 271 & 814 OF 2009 ============================ DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2010 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The rival contestants are before this Court and both of them claimed to be aggrieved by the impugned order under which the claim of three children, aged 20, 17 and 8 years respectively was allowed in part and their father, one of the contestants was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.750/- and Rs.750/- per mensem respectively to the three claimants, his children. 2. Appeal No. 814/2009 has been filed by the claimants- children, aggrieved by the quantum of amount fixed. Appeal No. 271/2009 is filed by the father contending that he is not liable to pay any amount to the claimants. Paternity is admitted. That the mother of the claimants, i.e.the wife of the respondent expired on 31/7/2007 and that he got remarried immediately thereafter is not disputed. Without dispute, the respondent- father has properties in his name. He has a workshop. He has an autorikshaw. The respondent-father admittedly has landed properties also in his name. 3. Claimants/children are admittedly in possession of 10 + 70 cents of land,these properties having been given to them b y their father. They are not employed. Claimants 1 and 3 are daughters whereas claimant No.2 is a son. They have no source of income except the said properties which allegedly fetch the income. All of them are students. 4. The court below, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.750/- and Rs.750/- per mensem respectively. The short question to be decided in this appeal is whether the quantum of maintenance fixed deserves upward or downward modification. No other contentions are raised. 5. We take note of the circumstances in life in which the claimants are placed. They have lost their mother. They have no income of their own, except alleged income from the properties. The total extent of land in their possession does not exceed 80 cents. Their father has a contention that actually not 70 cents as stated in the document, but a further extent of 60 cents is also actually available. That property actually has an extent of 1.30 acres according to him . There is absolutely nothing to substantiate this assertion. The respondent-father does admittedly run a workshop. He has an autorikshaw also. As stated earlier, he has some landed properties also in addition. He has income by way of rent also. There are indications to suggest that he has ailments. But the fact remains that within one month of the date of death of his wife, he had voluntarily undertaken the additional financial responsibility by marrying again. The totality of circumstances when considered, we feel that the quantum of maintenance fixed by the court below is low and justifies an upward modification. Taking the totality of the circumstances into account, we hold that maintenance should have been awarded to the claimants/children at least at the rate of Rs.1,500/-, Rs.1,250/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensem respectively. The challenge raised in these proceedings can succeed only to the above extent. 6. In the result, a) Mat appeal No.271/2009 is dismissed without costs. b)Mat appeal No. 814/20099 is allowed in part. c) The impugned direction for payment of maintenance is modified and the respondent-father is directed to pay maintenance to the three claimants at the rate of Rs.1,500/-, 1250/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensem respectively from the date of the suit, i.e. 22/1/2008. The direction to pay past maintenance for a period of one year prior to 22/1/2008 is also upheld. d) The appellants shall be entitled to the costs in Mat appeal No. 814/2009. R. BASANT, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks.