Father's Remarriage, Second Child No Ground To Reduce Maintenance For Child From First Marriage: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has observed that a man remarrying and having a child in the wedlock cannot be a legally recognisable defence to reduce maintenance amount for a child born in his first marriage. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 581]Justice C. Jayachandran made the observation while considering a revision petition challenging a maintenance order issued by the Family Court, Kollam. The Family Court...
The Kerala High Court has observed that a man remarrying and having a child in the wedlock cannot be a legally recognisable defence to reduce maintenance amount for a child born in his first marriage. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 581]
Justice C. Jayachandran made the observation while considering a revision petition challenging a maintenance order issued by the Family Court, Kollam.
The Family Court had directed the petitioner-husband to pay a maintenance amount of Rs 15,000/- per month to the minor child.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that a settlement has been arrived between the petitioner and the respondent wife in consequence of which, a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs was deposited in the name of the minor child. It was further submitted that it was agreed between the parties that the interest accruing from the deposit can be utilized for the maintenance of the child.
The respondents submitted that the child is suffering from spondylometaphyseal dysplasia, requiring special attention. It was further submitted that the respondent mother who is also a doctor by profession is pursuing post graduate studies, and that she is only receiving a stipend.
The respondents also submitted that the petitioner is drawing a salary of Rs. 1,25,000/- as he is employed as Assistant Medical Officer in the Indian Railways and hence the order directing Rs. 15,000/- as maintenance to the minor child cannot be treated as excessive.
The Court noted that since the minor child is suffering from spondylometaphyseal dysplasia, they require special care and attention.
“A person, who is drawing a salary of more than Rs.1 lakh cannot be heard to contend that the maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- for his child is excessive, especially when such child is a special child suffering from the disease above referred.” Court noted.
The Court further noted that the petitioner's contention that he remarried another woman, and there is a daughter born in that wedlock, cannot be a legally recognizable defence for reducing the maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- for the child born in the first marriage.
The Court noted that the respondent had admitted receipt of Rs. 4,800/- by way of interest from the fixed deposit made by the petitioner in favour of the child, hence the total maintenance could only become Rs. 19,800/-. The Court noted that this amount is not on the higher side to warrant any interference.
“This Court also takes into account the fact that apart from the additional expenditure required for the special care of the child, the child has to be brought up in accord with the standards of the parents, both of whom are medical professionals. The present cost of living factor also dissuades this Court from interfering with the Order impugned.” the Court added.
The Court also took note that more than Rs. 4 lakhs is pending as arrears to the respondents. The Court noted that it is open to the respondent to initiate appropriate action as per law for recovering the arrears.
The Court thus disposed of the petition.
Counsel for Petitioner: Pirappancode V.S. Sudhir, Akash S, Girish Kumar M S, Devika Jayaraj
Counsel for Respondent: Kirosh Rajan Ponnambil, Sikha S. Nair, Joseph P P