IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
THURSDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1941
RPFC.No. 396 of 2015
M.C.NO.465/2010 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM, DATED 01-10-2014
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
JAYAKRISHNAN,
AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O.SHEKARAN, THENJERI HOUSE, PALODU POST,
MANNARKKAD VIA, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN
K.RAMACHANDRAN, – DO –
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU
SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SHEEBA, AGED 28 YEARS,
D/O.KRISHNAN, MELEPARAMBIL VEEDU, THONIKKARA,
TIRURKADU P.O., PERINTHALMANNA- 679 321.
2 MRIDUL, AGED 4 YEARS (MINOR),
REPRESENTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.04.2019, ALONG WITH RP(FC)NO.562/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC.Nos.396/2015 562/2016 : 2 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
THURSDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1941
RPFC.No. 562 of 2016
M.C.NO.465/2010 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM, DATED 01-10-2014
REVISION PETITIONER/2ND PETITIONER:
MRIDUL, AGED 9 YEARS, (MINOR)
S/O.JAYAKRISHNAN
REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER
SHEEBA, D/O.KRISHNAN, MELEPPARAMBIL VEEDU,
THONIKKARA, TIRURKKADU POST,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
JAYAKRISHNAN,
S/O.SEKHARAN, THENJERI HOUSE, PALODU POST,
MANNARKKAD VIA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678 001
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU
SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.04.2019, ALONG WITH RP(FC).396/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC.Nos.396/2015 562/2016 : 3 :
COMMON ORDER
By the impugned order dated 1.10.2014, the Family Court,
Malappuram passed in M.C.465/2010 an order awarding
monthly maintenance of `900/- to the revision petitioner, minor
son in R.P.(FC).562/2016. His mother’s claim in the said M.C.
was turned down. She has not challenged the order dismissing
her claim for maintenance and the same has become final.
2. Being aggrieved by the order limiting the monthly
maintenance to `900/-, the son has filed R.P.(FC).562/2016.
Being aggrieved by the order fixing liability to maintain the son,
the father, who is the respondent in M.C.465/2010, has filed R.P.
(FC)396/2015.
3. The minor son was aged 9 years and studying in 4 th
Std. at the time when M.C.465/2010 was instituted by his
mother as his guardian. The relationship between parties is not
a disputed fact. It was alleged that the father was a graduate in
RPFC.Nos.396/2015 562/2016 : 4 :
B.Ed., taking tuition in private institutions and earning average
monthly income of `10,000/-. It was also alleged that he has
got other sources as well. The main contention by which the
father disowned his liability to maintain the child was that he was
suffering from Schizophrenia. He denied the sources of income
alleged as against him. He denied that he had ever been a
teacher or drawing any income from any sort of professional or
other sources. He defended the proceeding as against him
through his brother who acted as his guardian.
4. The court below, after considering the evidence on
record, held that revision petitioner/father cannot disown his
liability to maintain his son on the ground that he is a mental
patient and suffering from Schizophrenia. Ext.B2 certificate
dated 23.4.2014, issued from the District Medical Board,
Government Hospital, Manjeri, shows that he has active
Psychosis. Ext.B2 was a certificate issued in connection with
prosecution of C.C.No.304/2012 on the file of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court, Perinthalmanna against him for offence
punishable under Section 498A IPC and opinion formed by the
RPFC.Nos.396/2015 562/2016 : 5 :
Board was to the effect that he was not fit enough to stand trial.
The court below held that the evidence on record did not show
that he was in anyway incapacitated to undertake any job or
employment. It was of the view that, if at all, he was a man of
mental illness also, being the father of the child, he was not
justified in disowning his liability to maintain his son at all.
5. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner in R.P.(FC)396/2015 is that there are enough
records to prove the mental status of the revision petitioner to
show that he is suffering from Schizophrenia and is therefore
incapacitated to earn. In my opinion, even assuming that the
father/revision petitioner is a man suffering from mental illness
as sought to be proved through Ext.B2 also, there is no legal
justification for him to disown his basic legal liability to maintain
his own child. I fully agree with the view that was taken by the
court below in this respect.
6. Then, the remaining question that arises is as to the
reasonable quantum of maintenance liable to be fixed as
payable by the father. As per the impugned order dated
RPFC.Nos.396/2015 562/2016 : 6 :
1.10.2014, the Family Court, Malappuram fixed `900/- as being
the monthly sum which the son is entitled to claim from his
father.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in R.P.
(FC).562/2016 contended that the child is entitled to an
enhanced amount of maintenance in as much as the current
rate of maintenance fixed by the court below is not enough to
meet the requirements of the child who is undergoing education
etc.
8. On re-appreciating the evidence tendered, I am of the
opinion that there are enough materials suggesting that the
court below could have awarded at least a minimum of `1,250/-
towards the monthly maintenance of the child. PW1, the wife
has spoken that her husband was earning sufficiently from his
alleged profession. Anyway, there are no documents in black
and white to prove his sources of income at all. But,
nevertheless, I find that the testimony given by PW1 was not
rebutted by any contrary evidence adduced from the side of the
revision petitioner/husband. Nothing prevented his brother, who
RPFC.Nos.396/2015 562/2016 : 7 :
was acting as guardian on his behalf from testifying and denying
the allegation of source of income raised by PW1. On re-
appreciating evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the
child was entitled to get at least a minimum maintenance of
`1,250/- per month. The impugned order therefore requires a
slight modification as regards the quantum of maintenance fixed
by the court below.
In the result, confirming the impugned order of the court
below fastening liability on the revision petitioner/father, R.P.
(FC)396/2015 is dismissed. R.P.(FC).562/2016 brought by the
son is allowed enhancing his monthly allowance from ` 900/- to
` 1,250/- as already made clear above. He will recover from
his father monthly maintenance of `1,250/- from the date of
institution of M.C.465/2010.
Sd/-
T.V.ANILKUMAR
JUDGE
Bb
[True copy]
P.A to Judge
