IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 84 of 2008() --------------------- MC.346/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------- 1. GAYATHRI JAYAKUMAR, AGED 14 YEARS, D/O. P.M. JAYAKUMAR, MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER GUARDIAN BINDU JAYAKUMAR, APARTMENT NO.6A, "ASTER DALE", RAVEENDRAN ROAD, CHILAVANNUR, ERNAKULAM. 2. GANGA JAYAKUMAR AGED 11 YEARS, D/O. P.M. JAYAKUMAR, MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER GUARDIAN BINDU JAYAKUMAR -DO-. BY ADV. SMT.LEKHA SURESH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT: ------------------------ P.M. JAYAKUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. LATE INDUKALADHARA MENON OF SUJANI, KIZHUTHANI, IRINJALAKUDA, NOW RESIDING AT 610,LIG, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682035. BY ADV. SRI.T.M. RAMAN KARTHA THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2008, ALONG WITH RPFC NO. 167 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) Nos. 84 & 167 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008 ORDER The claimants/children and the respondent/father both have come before this Court with these revision petitions assailing a common order under which the claimants were awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- and 1,250/- per mensem respectively to be paid by the respondent - their father. 2. Parties will hereinafter be referred to as the claimants and the respondent in this common order. Paternity is not in dispute. The parents of the claimants have already secured an order of court for divorce. No amount of maintenance is claimed or awarded for the wife. The wife – mother of the claimants, is admittedly employed. 3. The short point in controversy was about the quantum of maintenance which the claimants/children are entitled to. R.P.(FC) Nos. 84 & 167 of 2008 -: 2 :- The claim was for an amount of Rs.3,000/- per mensem each. Both the claimants were students and their educational expenses as well as other expenses amply justified the claim, it was urged. It was contended that the respondent/father gets a monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. 4. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The mother of the claimants examined herself as P.W.1. The respondent/husband examined himself as R.W.1. He examined a witness as R.W.2. R.W.2 was examined primarily in an attempt to formally introduce into evidence Ext.B1 salary certificate issued by the employer of the respondent/father. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the claimants; whereas Exts.B1 to B7 were marked on the side of the respondent/father. 5. The learned Judge of the Family Court, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to a total amount of Rs.2,750/- per mensem from the date of the petition. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. 6. The learned counsel for the the claimants/children contends that the amount awarded is grossly inadequate R.P.(FC) Nos. 84 & 167 of 2008 -: 3 :- considering the needs of the claimants – young children, and the means of the respondent/father who has handsome income from various sources, including his employment. The learned counsel for the claimants/children contends that the respondent/father has been guilty of not co-operating with the court in the ascertainment of his actual income. The learned counsel particularly urges that Ext.B1 salary certificate and the oral evidence of R.W.2 must eloquently convey to the court that the respondent/father is not speaking the truth. The learned counsel prays that, in any view of the matter, the impugned order may not be upheld and an opportunity may be given to the claimants/children to adduce proper further evidence to show that the income of P.W.1 is much more than what he claimed under Ext.B1. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent/father, on the contrary, contends that the respondent/father has correctly placed all the relevant facts before the learned Judge of the Family Court and, in any view of the matter, the order passed does not deserve to be interfered with. He prays that the impugned quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. He R.P.(FC) Nos. 84 & 167 of 2008 -: 4 :- gets only an income of Rs.5,000/- per mensem as shown in Ext.B1 and as revealed from the oral evidence of himself and P.W.2, the direction to pay an amount of Rs.2,750/- per mensem out of the said income of Rs.5,000/- is totally unjust, it is contended. 8. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I have been taken through the depositions of the witnesses. The learned counsel for the claimants has placed before court the extracts of the bank accounts of the petitioner to show that the petitioner has been dealing with huge amounts in bank accounts and that he with objectionable motives had closed all those bank accounts before the commencement of the litigations between the parties. The learned counsel submits that if a further opportunity is given, the claimants shall be in a position to establish that the respondent/father has totally misled the court and has deliberately concocted the evidence. 9. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I am satisfied from the admitted evidence available on the side of the respondent/father that the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid does not warrant interference. The order passed is R.P.(FC) Nos. 84 & 167 of 2008 -: 5 :- found to be justified even on the basis of Ext.B1 salary certificate produced by the respondent/father. 10. I have carefully gone through Ext.B1 and the oral evidence of R.W.2. I cannot but express the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that R.W.2 has been pressed into service only to oblige the respondent/ father is correct. I do not want to embark on any further or detailed discussions, lest it may affect the interests of the respondent/ father when the matter goes back before the Family Court for further consideration. 11. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that appropriate directions can be issued to give the claimants a further opportunity to adduce all necessary evidence in support of their contention that the total income of the respondent/father is much more than the amount of Rs.5,000/- as shown under Ext.B1. I take this view in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case as it is evident by an analysis of the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 itself that his case that he is getting only Rs.5,000/- may not be correct. Even going by his own version of his expenses, it may be difficult to accept his oral R.P.(FC) Nos. 84 & 167 of 2008 -: 6 :- evidence. 12. However, inasmuch as I am adopting the course of sending the matter back to the Family Court for further evidence and fresh disposal, I am satisfied that both parties can be permitted to adduce further evidence, if any. I think it necessary, in the interests of justice, to issue a direction that until a fresh decision is taken by the Family Court on the basis of the further materials which may be made available before it, the respondent/father shall be obliged to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,250/- per mensem for the two children from the date of the M.C. as interim maintenance which payment shall be reckoned as an interim maintenance and appropriate direction shall be given in the final order regarding adjustment towards the past or future liability. 13. The learned counsel for the claimants/children submits that even though during the pendency of the M.C. also there were interim directions issued, they have not been complied with at all. I need only observe that the learned Judge of the Family Court must note that it is the duty of the Family Court to ensure that payment of interim maintenance is made and if not made, R.P.(FC) Nos. 84 & 167 of 2008 -: 7 :- the direction is enforced pending the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of law. 14. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 21/7/08. By 21/8/08 interim maintenance due till that day must be made. The learned Judge of the Family Court shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously thereafter, at any rate, within a period of two months from that date. The Registry shall send back the records forthwith to the Family Court. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge