Parmanand v Maharaj [1977] FJSC 46; Civil Appeal 003 of 1977 (31 August 1977)

Fiji Islands - Parmanand v Maharaj - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3 OF 1977

BETWEp>:

NOELLYN SUBEDA PARMANAND
d/o George Grant
Appellant

AND:

PARMANAND MAHARAJ
s/o Lal Chand Maharaj
Respondentndent

Mr. S. Prasad for the Appellant
Respondent in Person

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal from a decision of the Suva Magistrate's Court wherein the learned Magistrate varied a previous order for maintenance made in favour of the appellant and the three children of the marriage.

In the court below after hearing evidence the learned Magistrate varied the maintenance order which was made in 1972 from $12.50 to $15.00 per week for the appellant and from $3.50 to $5 per week for each of the children.

The appeal is brought on the ground that the order made by the learned Magistrate is grossly inadequate and unreasonable having regard to the means and needs of the respondent and the weight of evidence adduced at the trial.

The respondent is a Senior Education Officer in the Government service. His gross annual income is $7,830 or $326.25 per fortnight. His net income per fortnight (i.e. after deductions for tax, car loan, life insurance and union dues) is $195.64 out of this amount the respondent has to pay a fortnightly rent of $50 for accommodation in a house at Nausori. This leaves a sum of $145.64 or $72.82 per week, out of which $30 must go to meet his weekly maintenance obligations under the existing order. This will leave the respondent $42.82 per week on which to subsist. That is not by any means a large amount to spend each week on his own needs for food, groceries, clothes and travelling expenses bearing in mind his own standing in the community which he must live up to.

Under these circumstances I am not convinced that there is still room for further adjustment of the respondent's present income for maintenance purposes. On the evidence disclosed I am satisfied that the learned Magistrate's award was as fair as could be in the circumstances having regard to the court's duty not to create a situation whereby the respondent might become financially embarrassed. Such an outcome would be unfortunate and would surely ill-serve the best interests of the appellant and the children. This Court is therefore unable to say that the learned Magistrate has exercised his discretion wrongly in the order he has made.

Accordingly the appeal fails and is dismissed. I make no order as to costs.

T.U Tuivaga
JUDGE

Suva,
31st August, 1977