C.J.Antony vs Sheena Antony on 18 September, 2012


The case of C.J. Antony vs Sheena Antony involves matrimonial disputes where both parties, the husband and the wife along with their child, contested the maintenance amount determined by the Family Court in Trivandrum. This led to two separate appeals being filed in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, heard by Justices Pius C. Kuriakose and Babu Mathew P. Joseph.


C.J. Antony (the husband) and Sheena Antony (the wife), along with their child, Arun Choolackal, were embroiled in a legal battle concerning the maintenance payments for the wife and the child. The wife and child initially sought monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000 for the wife and Rs. 5,000 for the child. However, the Family Court awarded them Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 2,000 respectively, per month, until the date of the order, and thereafter Rs. 4,000 for the wife and Rs. 3,000 for the child per month.

Key Arguments

  • The wife and child, through their appeal (Mat. Appeal No.188 of 2009), argued that the maintenance awarded was insufficient given the husband’s financial capacity.
  • The husband, in his appeal (Mat. Appeal No.874 of 2008), contended that the maintenance amount was excessive relative to his income.

Court’s Observations

The court noted that the evidence, including the oral testimonies and documents, suggested that the maintenance set by the Family Court was on the lower side. It also disapproved of the Family Court’s approach of setting two different rates for the pendente lite period and for the future.

Court’s Decision

The High Court modified the earlier order, increasing the maintenance to Rs. 6,000 per month for the wife and Rs. 4,000 per month for the child, effective from the date of the application. Additionally, the court considered the husband’s requests reasonable: one for depositing a lump sum amount in fixed deposits to regularly provide the ordered maintenance through interest, and another to lift the attachment order on immovable properties owned jointly with his siblings to prevent undue hardship.


The High Court’s decision reflects a balanced approach in addressing the financial disputes in matrimonial cases, considering the welfare of the child and the economic positions of both parents. The court also showed flexibility in its judgment by allowing the husband to propose an alternative method of fulfilling his maintenance obligations, indicating a pragmatic understanding of the family’s complex dynamics and financial capabilities. Both appeals were disposed of with these considerations in mind.

References:  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143848387/

Leave a Reply

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