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 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 481 of 2009() ---------------------------- OP.117/2007 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT ------------------------- K.SUBRAMANIAN @ SUBHAYYAN CHETTIAR, S/O.KANDHASWAMY CHETTIAR, H.NO.9/176, NEAR TO VINAYAKAR KOVIL, VANNAMADA, KOZHIPPATHI VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ 1. BHAGYAM, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN @ SUBHAYYAN CHETTIAR, OZHALAPPATHAYIL, OZHALAPATHI VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. LATHA, D/O.BHAGYAM, AGED 21 YEARS (DEAF & DUMB), OZHALAPPATHAYIL, OZHALAPPATHI VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== MAT APPEAL NO. 481 OF 2009 ============================ DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. This appeal is preferred by the appellant, the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent. The respondents herein had staked claim for maintenance for themselves and marriage expenses of the second respondent. An amount of Rs.2,20,000/- was claimed as marriage expenses and amounts were claimed towards monthly maintenance of the respondents. The marriage is admitted. Paternity is conceded. That spouses are residing separately is also unambiguously admitted. Nay, we have evidence that the appellant herein is residing with another woman. He contends that the marital tie with the first respondent has been dissolved “as per customary rites”. He is admittedly employed. What is his employment? What is his salary? No satisfactory answers are given on these Mat.A.481/09 -2- aspects. The appellant,however,resisted the claim for maintenance of the respondents. He appears to have raised an ingenious contention that he is willing to maintain his wife if she is willing to be with him. We say that this is a strange case because in one breath, the petitioner takes up a plea of customary divorce and in the next he pleads that he is willing to accommodate such divorced wife with him. Less said about the said plea, the better. Before the court below the first respondent wife examined herself as PW1. The appellant examined himself as RW1. Exts.B1 to B3 were marked. 2. The short dispute was about the quantum of maintenance to be paid as also the quantum of marriage expenses. The court below on the basis of the materials available directed payment of an amount of Rs.1000/- per mensem each as maintenance to both the respondents, but directed that in so far as the second respondent is concerned, maintenance need be paid only till the date of her admitted marriage. On the question of expenses relating to marriage, there was only the oral Mat.A.481/09 -3- evidence of PW1. The court below did not swallow the same, but in the light of the evidence came to the conclusion that at least an amount of Rs.one lakh must have been spent for the marriage of the second respondent. It is accordingly that the impugned order was passed . 3. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge, which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned order, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the quantum of maintenance awarded – at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensem is excessive. It is further contended that the amount of Rs.one lakh awarded as marriage expenses is also excessive. 4. Looking at the quantum by itself, the amount awarded as maintenance for the wife aged 47 years and the unmarried daughter aged 21 years is only Rs.1,000/- per mensem. Considering the cost of living and the prices of commodities, that amount is hardly insufficient for an adult person to keep body and soul together. We, in these circumstances, judged from the needs of the respondents conclude that the quantum of Mat.A.481/09 -4- maintenance fixed by the court below does not warrant interference at all. 5. We now look at the means of the appellant. He had not co-operated with the court at all. Except his oral assertion, no other oral evidence is adduced. He had not disclosed the name of the employer or the monthly income. He did not produce any documents to prove his monthly income. Admittedly he assists another person in the sale of baby food. He orally asserted that his monthly income is Rs.2500-3000. In the nature of the evidence available about his means, we are satisfied that the court below committed no indiscretion warranting appellate interference in fixing the quantum of monthly maintenance payable by the petitioner, i.e., of Rs.1000/- each for both respondents. 6. We take note of the fact that after the date of the admitted marriage of the second respondent, who is deaf and dumb, the appellant does not have such liability to pay maintenance to the daughter,the 2nd respondent. Mat.A.481/09 -5- 7. Coming to the quantum of marriage expenses, the court below had only considered the oral evidence of PW1. The appellant has a case and that is strenuously urged before us that he met half the expenses of the marriage. We wanted the counsel to enlighten us as to what the quantum of amount paid by him is. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.50,000/- has been paid. There is not a scintilla of evidence to show that the said amount has been paid. It is idle to assume that the strained husband would have been paid the amount of Rs.50,000/- without any voucher or receipt to meet the marriage expenses of the 2nd respondent, daughter. The total absence of any evidence knocks the bottom out of the theory that half the amount was paid by the appellant to meet the marriage expenses. 8. But that contention of the appellant helps us to test the acceptability of the quantification of the marriage expenses by the court below. Even according to the appellant he had paid half the marriage expenses and the total marriage expenses was hence admittedly above rupees one lakh. In these Mat.A.481/09 -6- circumstances, the court below, according to us, has committed no error warranting interference in fixing the marriage expenses at rupees one lakh. 9. In any view of the matter the impugned order does not warrant interference. We are satisfied that it will be harsh, unkind and unjust for this Court to admit this appeal and order notice to the respondent for consideration of the challenge raised above by the appellant. At the instance of the appellant herein, the impugned judgment does not at all warrant interference. 10. The appeal fails and it is dismissed. R. BASANT, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. Mat.A.481/09 -7-