IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 490 of 2007() ---------------------------- OS.250/1999 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT : DEFENDANT ------------------------ LAWRENCE, S/O NELLATHAMPI, KALABHAVAN, PUTHUMMELKONAM, KARODE MURI, VILAPPIL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.VASAVAN PILLAI RESPONDENT : PLAINTIFF ------------------------ PRIYA RANI, AGED 27, D/O KOMALAM, VETTUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PULIYAMKODE, AYIROOPPARA, ULIYAZHTHURA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. NOW RESIDING AT DHANISH COTTAGE, PARINGOTTUKUZHI, NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-15. ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ Mat.Appeal No.490 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. This appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrieved by an order passed by the Family Court obliging him to pay maintenance @ Rs.500/- per mensem from 30.10.1998 to August, 1999 and further to pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh towards the expenses for the marriage of his daughter, which took place during the pendency of the application. 2. On fundamental facts, there is no dispute. The appellant was married to the mother of the respondent. There was disagreement between the spouses. They started living separately. It is submitted that there is a decree for judicial separation and spouses have been residing separately from 1981. The claimant herein is the daughter born to the spouses in that marital tie. She was earlier granted maintenance @ Rs.300/- per mensem under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Such payment was made till she attained majority on 30.10.1998. After she achieved Mat.Appeal No.490 of 2007 2 majority, she could not claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is, in these circumstances, that the present suit was filed claiming maintenance and marriage expenses. An amount of Rs.1,500/- was claimed as monthly maintenance. An amount of Rs.6 lakhs was claimed as marriage expenses. At the time when the claim was staked, the claimant had not got married. During the pendency of the suit, she got married. 3. The appellant resisted the claim for maintenance and marriage expenses. According to him, he does not have the means to pay maintenance or marriage expenses as claimed. 4. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The claimant examined herself as PW1, her mother as PW2, her uncle as PW3 and a witness as PW4. The appellant examined himself as DW1. He examined DWs 2 and 3 also. Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the claimant; whereas Exts.B1 to B13 were marked on the side of the appellant. 5. The court below on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to maintenance only from 30.10.1998 to the date of her marriage. It was further found that she is entitled to such Mat.Appeal No.490 of 2007 3 maintenance only @ Rs.500/- per mensem. Though a claim was staked for Rs.6 lakhs as marriage expenses, the court below proceeded to direct payment of only Rs.1 lakh as marriage expenses. 6. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned decree. What is his grievance ? The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned order on the following grounds. A) The appellant does not have the means to pay maintenance and marriage expenses as awarded by the Family Court; B) At any rate, the claimant is not entitled to claim the amount as the expenses were incurred by her mother; C) The marriage was performed without consulting the appellant and without giving any information to him; D) The quantum awarded is excessive. 7. Ground A There is satisfactory evidence to show that the appellant was having an employment at the time when the marriage of the claimant took place. On this aspect, the counsel for the respondent relies on the specific statement made by the Mat.Appeal No.490 of 2007 4 appellant in the course of cross examination as RW1. In page 8 of the deposition of the appellant, it is admitted categorically that at the time when Priya Rani, the claimant, got married, he was employed in the workshop, ie. Jacob's Machine Tools. It is further admitted that 4 months after the marriage, he had taken a conduct certificate from there and had left that employment. It is the very specific assertion of the claimant that her father the appellant was continuing to be employed with the said employer. According to the appellant, he was not having such employment and that plea cannot obviously be accepted in the light of the categoric admissions made in his deposition. Less said about Ext.B11 certificate, the better. That cannot lead a court to the conclusion that the appellant was not having any employment contrary to his specific admissions in the course of cross examination. It is established - going by the undisputed evidence, that the appellant has 1.33 acres of land belonging to him. Admittedly he is getting income from these properties also, Mat.Appeal No.490 of 2007 5 though he asserts that he gets only an income of Rs.100/- from that. This assertion cannot be meekly swallowed by any court. There is a contention that the appellant is not doing well. Satisfactory evidence to prove that he suffers from any such physical affliction, which makes it impossible for him to work, has not been placed before court. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the contention that the means of the appellant does not justify an order for payment of maintenance and marriage expenses. 8. Ground B Secondly it is contended that it is his wife, ie. the mother of the claimant who had spent the amount for the marriage. Inasmuch as amounts of the marriage were spent not by the claimant, but by her mother, it is argued that the claimant cannot successfully claim such amounts from the respondent. We find no merit in this contention at all. The claimant may have got the marriage conducted by borrowing or taking advances from others willing to oblige. That does not mean that she cannot stake the claim against her father for her marriage expenses. The mere fact that she raised the amounts required for her marriage from Mat.Appeal No.490 of 2007 6 her mother, uncle, neighbour etc. will not in any way justify the contention that the claimant is not entitled to stake claims for such amounts. Even assuming that the mother had given the amount to her to meet the expenses of the marriage, it cannot for a moment be contended that the father's liability would get absolved on that reason. The contention that at any rate mother of the claimant, not the claimant, should have initiated the action is not valid. The challenge on the second ground also cannot succeed. 9. Ground C It is thirdly contended that no information has been given to the appellant about the marriage. For the sake of argument, we will assume this to be true. On his own conduct with only a judicial order of separation between him and his wife, the appellant has married another woman and has 3 children in such relationship. If in these circumstances, relationship between the parties are strained and the claimant and her mother chose not to inform the appellant about the marriage, that cannot obviously justify a claim for absolution from liability. That contention cannot also succeed. Mat.Appeal No.490 of 2007 7 10. Ground D The counsel contends that the quantum of expenses for marriage awarded is excessive. It is true that there was no specific evidence except the assertion of the interested witnesses about the quantum of expenditure incurred for the marriage. A court cannot be naive or hyper technical on matters like this. Reasonable inferences will have to be drawn on the basis of broad probabilities. Law and the Courts cannot be far removed from raw life. According to the respondents, expenses exceeding Rs.4 lakhs was incurred. This, according to them, was incurred for payment of pocket money to the bride groom (Rs.1 lakh), purchase of gold ornaments (Rs.2 lakhs) and expenses for marriage (Rs.1 lakh). This was raised by borrowal, loan from the banks etc., according to the claimant and her mother. We find it absolutely reasonable to accept the assertion of the claimant and her witnesses that expenditure of at least Rs.1 lakh must have been incurred in addition to the voluntary contribution of the mother to get the marriage performed. In any view of the matter, we are unable to agree that the quantum of marriage expenses awarded is excessive. So far as the claim for Mat.Appeal No.490 of 2007 8 maintenance is concerned, what is awarded is only Rs.500/- per mensem and by no stretch of imagination can it be contended that the said amount awarded is excessive. 11. No other contentions are raised. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that the impugned order does not warrant interference. 12. In the result: a) This appeal is dismissed; b) The impugned order is upheld; c) In the circumstances of the case we direct the parties to suffer their respective cost. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/-