SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jayakrishnan vs Jayakrishnan on 4 April, 2019

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation