MERIN KURIAN v. ZACHARIAH P.M.
Court: High Court of Kerala
Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Kerala judgment dated 2025-02-19. MERIN KURIAN v. ZACHARIAH P.M. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
RPFC No. 147 of 2020 .. 1.. 2025:KER:13970 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TH WEDNESDAY, THE 19 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 30TH MAGHA, 1946 RPFC NO. 147 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29. 02. 2020 IN MC NO. 155 OF 2016 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: 1 MERIN KURIAN AGED 38 YEARS, WIFE OF ZACHARIAH. P. M. , HOUSSEWIFE, ANCHERIPUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, VADAVATHOOR P. O. , NEAR PONPALLY, KOTTAYAM. 2 ABHIJITH ZACHARIAH (MINOR) AGED 14 YEARS, SON OF ZACHARIAH. P. M. , ANCHERIPUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, VADAVATHOOR P. O. , NEAR PONPALLY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER MERIN KURIAN. 3 ASHIN ZACHARIAH(MINOR) AGED 11 YEARS, SON OF ZACHARIAH. P. M. , ANCHERIPUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, VADAVATHOOR P. O. , NEAR PONPALLY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER MERIN KURIAN. BY ADVS. BASIL MATHEW SRI. NINAN JOHN SMT. SANJANA SARA VARGHESE ANNIE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ZACHARIAH P. M.
AGED 46 YEARS, SON OF LATE MATHEW, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, RPFC No. 147 of 2020 .. 2.. 2025:KER:13970 PULLUPARAMPIL HOUSE, MALAM P. O. , KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI. PHILIP T. VARGHESE SRI. THOMAS T. VARGHESE SMT. ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM SMT. V. T. LITHA SMT. K. R. MONISHA SMT. SHRUTHI SARA JACOB SRI. V. VINCENT DIDACOSE SMT. RAVEENA NAZ THIS REV. PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19. 02. 2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC No. 147 of 2020 .. 3.. 2025:KER:13970 O R D E R This Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor in M. C. No. 155 of 2016 dated 29. 02. 2020. st 2. The 1 petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The nd rd st 2 and 3 petitioners are the children of the 1 petitioner and the respondent. The petitioners filed a maintenance case against the respondent claiming monthly maintenance at the st rate of Rs. 8,000/- for the 1 petitioner and Rs.
10,000/- each nd rd to the 2 and 3 petitioners. The Family Court after st evaluating the evidence disallowed the claim of the 1 petitioner for maintenance and granted monthly maintenance nd rd of Rs. 5,000/- to the 2 petitioner and Rs. 4,000/- to the 3 petitioner. It is challenging the said order, the petitioners preferred this revision petition. 3. I have heard Sri. Basil Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. K. R. Monisha, the learned counsel RPFC No. 147 of 2020 .. 4.. 2025:KER:13970 for respondent. 4. The marriage and paternity are not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Government employee. He is working as Assistant Professor at Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Technology, Pampady. According to the petitioners, the respondent is drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 75,000/-. But there is no evidence to prove the said fact. However, the respondent has admitted that he is drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 58,000/-. st 5.
The Family Court disallowed the claim of the 1 petitioner for maintenance on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that she is not able to maintain herself. The st 1 petitioner has admitted in the petition and when she was examined as PW1, that she was working as a Clerk in a private finance company, namely Malayalam Bankers. However, her definite case is that she lost her job one month prior to the filing of the petition. The Family Court found that since she had admitted that she was having job and lost it RPFC No. 147 of 2020 .. 5.. 2025:KER:13970 one month prior to the filing of the petition, it was up to her to prove the same. The Family Court further found that in the absence of any positive evidence to show that she has lost the job it has to be presumed that she is still having job and is able to maintain herself. I cannot subscribe to the said st finding of the Family Court. The fact that the 1 petitioner lost her job one month prior to the petition is not in dispute.
In st other words, the fact that the 1 petitioner has lost her job prior to one month has been admitted by the respondent in the objection statement as well as in his chief examination. st So an admitted fact need not be proved. Since the 1 petitioner does not have any job or source of income, the respondent being her husband is legally and morally bound to st maintain her. The 1 petitioner has claimed Rs. 8,000/- per nd rd month as maintenance and the 2 and 3 petitioners have claimed Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance. There is a specific pleading in the petition for maintenance that the petitioners require the above mentioned amount for their RPFC No. 147 of 2020 .. 6.. 2025:KER:13970 maintenance. It is pertinent to note that the said specific pleading has not been controverted in the objection statement. 6. Taking into account the entire facts and st circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the 1 petitioner requires Rs. 6,000/- per month for her maintenance.
So far as the children are concerned, only the quantum is in dispute. At the time of filing the petition in the nd rd year 2016, the 2 petitioner was aged 10 years and the 3 petitioner was aged 7 years. Both are students and studying nd rd in school. Considering the requirements of the 2 and 3 petitioners and the means of the respondent, I am of the view that the monthly maintenance granted by the Family nd Court needs to be enhanced. Rs. 7,000/- per month to the 2 rd petitioner and Rs. 6,000/- per month to the 3 petitioner would be just and reasonable. For the reasons stated above, the finding of the Family st Court in the impugned order that the 1 petitioner is not RPFC No. 147 of 2020 .. 7.. 2025:KER:13970 entitled to maintenance is hereby set aside. The respondent st is directed to provide maintenance to the 1 petitioner at the nd rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month, to the 2 petitioner at the rate rd of Rs. 7,000/- per month and to the 3 petitioner at the rate of Rs.
6,000/- per month from the date of the petition. The revision petition is allowed as above. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE APA RPFC No. 147 of 2020 .. 8.. 2025:KER:13970 APPENDIX OF RPFC 147/2020 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER M. C. NO. 155/2016 DATED 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020 ON THE FILE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMMANOOR.
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.