IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932 Mat.Appeal.No. 787 of 2010() ---------------------------- OP.1008/2003 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: APPELLANT/.PETITIONER ------------------------------------ GEORGE THOMAS,AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.KANDATHINKARA THOMAS,ARIMBUZHA VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) SRI.ROY THOMAS RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ------------------------- 1. MERCY,AGED 60 YEARS,D/O.DEVASSY MATHAI,MEPPADATH GRACE BHAVAN,CHELAKKARA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 2. SUSAN GEORGE,AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.MERCY MEPPADATH GRACE BHAVAN,CHELAKKARA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2010, ALONG WITH MA NO. 833 OF 2010. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mat. Appeal Nos.787 & 833 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant J., The husband is the appellant in these Mat. Appeals. His wife is the respondent in one appeal and his wife and child are the respondents in the other appeal. 2. The wife and child had claimed amount from the appellant towards maintenance. There were other claims also. The claim has been rejected. Maintenance was awarded to the wife and the child at the rate of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensem, notwithstanding the fact that higher claim was made in that petition. 3. Marriage and paternity are not disputed. Seperate residence is also admitted. The Court found that the wife is entitled for seperate maintenance as there was evidence as cruelty tended by the both parents towards the mother and the daughter. The appellant had contended that the wife is having two items of Mat. A.787 & 833 /2010 2 properties and hence she was not entitled to maintain herself. The court on appreciation of the evidence noted that Exts. B1 and B2 properties which were allotted to be belonging and in posession of the wife for admittedly been transferred prior to the claim... The husband contended that he is without any means. The court did not accept the same. The Court took note of the fact that admtitedly that the husband had brought properties in his partition. The wife asserted that he had more 20 acres of land alloted under the said partition. The husband did not produce any documents to proof the extent of properties that he obtained under the partition. There is no need to say that the husband is unable to work and earn his livelihood. Taking the totality under consideration the Court below fixed the monthly earning of the appellant at Rs.10,000/- and consquently proceeded to issue impugned direction to him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensem to his wife and child. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant in detail except with the contention that the quantum fixed is higher. Mat. A.787 & 833 /2010 3 No other ground is raise don the basis of materials presently available. But we are unable to agree that the monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,000/- granted to the respondents called so inferences by invoking our jurisdictional constitution udner Section 19, it is justified to admit that this appeals for consideration on the question of admission. We are satisifed that these appeals to be dismissed in limine. 5. In the other appeal, the wife claims partition and seperate posession of an item of property acquired during the currency of the matrimonial in the joint names of the spouses. That acquisition is in the joint names of the spouses is admitted. According to the husband it is investigate the entire amount and the name of his wife shall showsn as one of the acquirers of the title only considering her status as the wife. A resumption is inescapable that such acquisition was for the benefit of the wife, who had to confer the rights of his wife. Even assuming that ights were acquired in her name binami, the presumption is inescapable that the purchase was for her benefit and she has title of half of share over the property. Mat. A.787 & 833 /2010 4 We find no worthwhile contention available for the appellant in these circumstances. The presumption that the purchase must have been with intention of confering title on the wife available under the binami T.P. Act does not enter in any way discharged or admitted to be discharged. The main decree for assertion is unless to be unexceptional. Admi of the said appeals is not warranted. We are satisfied in these circumstances that these appeals deserve to be dismissed now. We do so. R. BASANT, JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE dl/