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 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 877 of 2008() ---------------------------- OS.181/1996 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): DEFENDANT ------------------------ SOLOMON @ SOMAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. GOPALA PANICKER, HOLY FAMILY HOUSE, THANNIMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS ------------------------- 1. S. SALAJA KUMARI, THAIKKATATHIL VEEDU, VENPAKAL VIA, AVALUMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SREEJITH, THAIKKATETHIL VEEDU, VENPAKAL VIA, AVALUMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- C.M.Appl. No. 3013 of 2008 & Mat. Appeal No. 877 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT/ORDER Basant,J. This petition is to condone the delay of 32 days in filing an appeal. This appeal, in turn, is directed against an order, inter alia, granting maintenance to the claimants - wife and child of the appellant herein. Only the direction for payment of maintenance is challenged before us. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is admitted. Separate residence is also admitted. According to the claimants, they are entitled to maintenance from the appellant. The second claimant - a minor child, attained majority during the pendency of the proceedings. Other reliefs were also claimed. It is unnecessary to advert to the other reliefs claimed and granted Mat. Appeal No. 877 of 2008 -: 2 :- inasmuch as there is no challenge against the same. 3. The claim for maintenance of the wife and child was resisted. It was contended that an amount of Rs.200/- per mensem was being paid by the husband to the wife as agreed. Though this was denied by the wife, the court found that in Ext.B1 notice of demand there was an admission that such payments were being received. The learned Judge of the Family Court, in these circumstances, did not direct payment of any past maintenance. 4. So far as the claim for maintenance from the date of the petition is concerned, it was contended that the wife is employed and is not unable to maintain herself. The wife admitted that she has employment. From that employment, she was getting a meager income along with food. The court took that into consideration while awarding maintenance for the wife. 5. The appellant is employed as an Accountant in the District Co-operative Bank, Trivandrum. On his own showing his total income exceeds Rs.13,675/- per mensem. The wife was in possession of 40 cents of land which were in the joint names of the appellant and the respondent/wife. According to the respondent/wife, this property belonged exclusively to her, her parents having given it to her at the time of wedding. The appellant did not dispute that fact. Other relief granted is in respect of the said property. That finding and relief granted are Mat. Appeal No. 877 of 2008 -: 3 :- not challenged. 6. Maintenance has been awarded at the rate of Rs.500/- per mensem for a period of 6 years from the date of the suit. Thereafter, till the date of the judgment. Maintenance has been awarded to the wife at the rate of Rs.750/- per mensem. From the date of judgment, maintenance has been awarded at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensem. The short question is whether the amount awarded is excessive. To the second claimant/child, maintenance has been awarded only at the rate of Rs.500/- per mensem from the date of the petition to the date of attainment of majority. The short question is whether these amounts awarded are excessive. 7. We accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent had some employment. We accept the submission that she has 40 cents of property in her possession. We note that admittedly the appellant is a person having an income exceeding Rs.13,000/- per mensem. In this view of the matter, by no stretch of imagination, can it be held that the amounts awarded referred above are in any way excessive. We find no merit in the submission at all. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is a house in the 40 cents of land in respect of which the unchallenged relief has been granted. That house was put up by the appellant. This theory of the husband must also be taken Mat. Appeal No. 877 of 2008 -: 4 :- into account while granting the maintenance awarded. The amount invested in the house must be set off against the claim for maintenance, contends the counsel. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the appellant had put up the house. Even taking note of the fact that the wife has a house to reside, the quantum of maintenance does not, according to us, warrant interference invoking our appellate jurisdiction under Sec.19 of the Family Courts Act. Future maintenance required for survival cannot obviously set off against the expenses incurred for providing shelter, even if that theory be true. 9. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the petition for condonation of delay is allowed and the Mat. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //True Copy// P.S. to Judge Mat. Appeal No. 877 of 2008 -: 5 :-