IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 451 of 2009() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.946/1996 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- K. RAJAN, S/O. KUNJUKRISHNA PANICKER, VAISAKHAM, KOTTAMOM, ARAYOOR.P.O, NEYYATINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. VINEETHA, D/O. BOBY SAROJAM, KATHIRUVILA VEEDU, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RENJU, D/O. RAJAN, GIRIJA SADANAM, T.C 17/967, POOJAPURA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. RESHMI, D/O. RAJAN, GIRIJA SADANAM, TC 17/967, POOJAPURAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.G.BIJU FOR R2 & R3 SRI.S.JAYAPRAKASH (MADAVOOR) FOR R2 & R3 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mat.Appeal No.451 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant,J The appellant in this appeal assails an order passed by the Family Court obliging him to pay maintenance to his two minor children at the rates of Rs.750/- per mensum, Rs.1,000/- per mensum and Rs.1,500/- per mensum each for different periods. 2. Paternity is admitted. Separate residence is admitted. There is no contention that the children have any means of their own. The only contention raised is that the mother has income by way of rent from shop rooms and she is affluent. There is a further contention raised that the mother had received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- prior to the commencement of the proceedings and Rs.1,00,000/- subsequent to the proceedings and these amounts are liable to be credited towards the maintenance payable to the children. It is the case of the appellant/husband that the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- initially and Rs.1,00,000/- subsequently have all been paid to the mother of the children to satisfy the claim of the children for Mat.Appeal No.451/09 2 maintenance. The claimant/wife, who staked the claim on behalf of her minor children, did not admit and accept the payment. She did not agree that those amounts were received towards the maintenance of the children. 3. The court below considered all the relevant inputs. The court took note of the fact that the appellant/husband is a Central Government employee getting a total monthly salary exceeding Rs.13,000/-. The court did take note of the claimed payments of Rs.2,00,000/-. In spite of all that, the court was of the opinion that considering the degree of the financial affluence of the appellant/father and the needs of the children, the said amount of Rs.750/- per mensum for both the children for the initial period of six years and thereafter till the date of the order at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensum and subsequently at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per mensum is absolutely reasonable and the same can be awarded to the children. 4. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is his grievance? He reiterates the contention that the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- though disputed must have been accepted by the court below and the court below should have absolve him from the liability to pay maintenance to the children. Mat.Appeal No.451/09 3 A careful reading of the impugned order of the court below clearly shows that notwithstanding the dispute raised by the claimant/mother of the minor children, the court did take into account the fact that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid. The court felt that the claim of Rs.2,000/- per mensum each as monthly maintenance staked by the mother of the minor children is not justified and they are entitled only for Rs.750/- per mensum, Rs.1,000/- per mensum and Rs.1,500/- per mensum each for different periods. This conclusion has been reached by the court below after taking note of the admitted payments. Considering the age of the children, their probable needs, the admitted and undisputed assertion that the children have no means of their own the proved fact that their father gets a total income exceeding Rs.13,000/- per mens um and the admitted assertion that he is having no other liability except to maintain himself, the quantum of maintenance awarded can, by no stretch of imagination, be held to be excessive or unjustified as to warrant the appellate interference of this court invoking the jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act. This is so even accepting that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has already been paid by the appellant to his children. We are satisfied that Mat.Appeal No.451/09 4 the quantum fixed by the court below and the award of maintenance at those rates do not warrant interference. 5. In the result, a) This Mat.Appeal is dismissed. b) The impugned order is upheld. c) The amounts, in deposit before the court below, as per the orders of this court, shall forthwith be released to the claimants. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr Mat.Appeal No.451/09 5 Mat.Appeal No.451/09 6 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009