IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 560 of 2009() ---------------------------- OP.839/1999 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------- B.V.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, T.C.41/334, 'SRUTHI', PAVITHRA NAGAR-66, KURIYATHI, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.SAJU JOHN SRI.V.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------- 1. REKHA, W/O.B.V.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, T.C.49/1002, THOPPUVILAKATHU VEEDU, CHIRAMUKKU, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MEERA GOPAL,D/O.REKHA(MINOR), REP. BY THE IST PETITIONER BEING THE GUARDIAN. 3. REVATHI, D/O.REKHA, (MINOR), REP. BY THE IST PETITIONER, BEING THE GUARDIAN. ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY FOR CAVEATOR THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- Mat.Appeal No.560 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JULY, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. The appellant has come to this Court aggrieved by the direction for payment of maintenance to his wife and two minor children at the rate of Rs.1,000/- each per mensem(Total Rs.3,000/- per mensem). 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed. Separate residence is also conceded. It is further admitted that the parties have secured divorce. The court below directed payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- per mensem for a period of five years from the date of filing of the petition in 1999. Thereafter maintenance was ordered to be paid at the rate of Rs.700/- per mensem each till the date of the impugned order. From the date of the impugned order direction was issued to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensem. There was also a direction to return an amount of Rs.20,000/- which the appellant had admittedly received from the respondent, Mat.Appeal No.560/09 -2- though the respondent had claimed that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid. 3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? So far as the amount of Rs.20,000/- is concerned, the court below relied on the admission of the appellant that he had received the said amount of Rs.20,000/-. No contention has been advanced before us against the said finding of the Family Court. 4. The only contention raised before us is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. The claim was filed as early as in 1999. The court below had realistically awarded only lesser amounts for the earlier periods of time. Amounts are awarded at the rate of Rs.400, Rs.700/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensem for all the claimants for various periods. 5. Going by the needs of the claimants, by no stretch of imagination, can it be held that the amount of maintenance fixed at the rates shown above is excessive. The amount of Rs.1,000/- per mensem is hardly sufficient for the claimants to keep body and soul together. Judged from their requirements, the amount Mat.Appeal No.560/09 -3- awarded cannot hence be held to be excessive. 6. The learned counsel contends that the appellant has only a monthly income of Rs.1,795/-. For this purpose, he relied on a certificate which he received from Mannam Memmorial Residential Higher Secondary School. The court below was not prepared to accept that, that is the only monthly income of the appellant. The court below took note of Exhibits A1 to A6 which conveyed unmistakably that the appellant was having alternative sources of income. He was a Musician and he was undertaking programmes for various organisations and institutions. The court below took note of his own claim in a notice issued through the counsel that he had suffered loss exceeding Rs.3 lakhs on account of the conduct of the wife, who obstructed his activities as a Musician. 7. It is true that the wife was not able to produce specific evidence about the quantum of income which the appellant derives. But it would be puerile for a court to expect such authentic documentary evidence in all cases. Exhibits A1 to A6 are the available documents which indicate the possible and Mat.Appeal No.560/09 -4- probable income of the appellant. It does not require the wisdom of Solomon to conclude that the appellant was not living on the meagre income of Rs.1,795/- which he was allegedly getting as monthly income from one School. In any view of the matter, according to us, the court below has committed no error or indiscretion in assuming, in the light of the totality of inputs available, that the husband, i.e., the appellant herein will be in a position to pay monthly maintenance prospectively at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensem to the three claimants. In any view of the matter, in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction vested in us under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, that decision does not call for interference. The same appears to be fair, just and reasonable to us. This Mat.Appeal is in these circumstances dismissed in limine. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn