IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2011 / 25TH SRAVANA 1933 Mat.Appeal.No. 360 of 2011() ---------------------------- OS.299/2006 of FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/DEFENDANT ---------------------------------- VASUDEVAN V.R., AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. RAMAN, VENATTUTHEKKATHIL, VARUVILA P.O., KLAPPANA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHAMMED PUZHAKKARA SRI.SAJEEVAN KURUKKUTTIYULLATHIL RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF ------------------------ JAGADAMMA, AGED 54 YEARS, D/O. GANGADHARAN, KANDATHIL, VARUVILA P.O., CLAPPANA, KOLLAM-691 001. ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- Mat.A.No.360 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. 1.The husband, a KSEB pensioner, is the appellant against a decree for maintenance. The marriage is admitted. It took place on 26.5.2002. The couple remains issueless. The family court has granted a decree in favour of the wife for maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- per month from 30.6.2004 till 20.9.2006, the date of suit and thereafter, to continue at that rate till January, 2007 and at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month thereafter. 2.Having regard to the provisions of Section 60 CPC and the provisions which compel the husband to pay maintenance for the wife, we do not find any issue of law arising for decision in this appeal because even going by the income MA.360/11 2 certificate that the learned counsel for the appellant would like us to see, the total drawals by the appellant for the month of March, 2007 was Rs.2505/-. We are not told by the appellant as to what he did with the DCRG and other amounts which would have came to him as retiral package. With this, we ascertained whether the appellant has any legal obligation to maintain any other person excluding the wife or children. The answer on behalf of the appellant is in the negative. We, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. Hence, the appeal fails. It is accordingly dismissed. 3.However, we are inclined to think that the appellant should be given a breathing time to pay off the arrears. We, therefore, direct that the decree in so far as past maintenance for the period from 30.6.2004 to 20.9.2006 is concerned, the amounts covered by the decree in that regard will be paid off in three equal monthly instalments, payable on or before the last working day of every month MA.360/11 3 commencing from August, 2011 and the arrear from 20.9.2006 till date will be paid off in three instalments commencing from the last working day of November, 2011, without fail. However, the maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month due from August, 2011 will be paid promptly on or before the 25th of every month commencing from August, 2011. If there is default in abiding by any of these conditions as to instalments, the benefit of this indulgence will also stand vacated and execution proceedings shall, in accordance with law, follow against the appellant. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, Judge. kkb.18/8.