JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. We are considering these Appeals together and are disposing them of through this judgment jointly, since the factual factors involved are similar; while, the parties are common. 2. These Appeals – both filed by the same appellant - arise out of two different Original Petitions, namely O.P.Nos.863/2016 and 31/2016 - both on the files of the learned Family Court, Attingal. 3. While O.P.No.31/2016 was filed by two girls, seeking marriage expenses and arrears of maintenance from their father – the appellant; the latter filed O.P.No.863/2016 seeking that an earlier decree obtained by the former and their mother in O.P.No.1844/2003 - granting them certain amounts as maintenance from him - be modified, since he does not have the means to honour the same. 4. The learned Family Court took both the Original Petitions to trial jointly; and on the side of the respondents, Exts.A1 to A9 were produced; while, the first among them, along with three others - including their mother, offered testimony as PW1 to PW4. On the side of the appellant, he examined himself as RW1 and got another witness to testify as RW2; also marking Exts.P1 to P10 in evidence. 5. The gravamen of the assertion of the appellant in both these Appeals is that he is not financially capable of honouring the decree of the learned Family Court in O.P.No.31/2016 - which directed him to pay Rs.20,00,000/- each to his daughters towards marriage expenses; nor that in O.P.No.1844/2003 - directing him to pay certain amounts as maintenance to his wife and children. He maintains that his financial disability is on account of his allegedly debilitating medical condition, leading to ill health; and tried to establish this through two documents, namely Exts.B4 and B5, purportedly to prove that he has a cardiac issue. Adscititiously, he contends that he is not liable to pay any amount - either towards maintenance, or as marriage expenses to his daughters – because, they are being taken care by her mother, who is a retired Government servant, with a pension of Rs.15,000/- per month and who had obtained more than Rs.30,00,000/- as retiral benefits. He further argues that his wife has valuable properties in her name; and that his daughters are taking “tuition classes” to earn for themselves; thus he being not liable to provide for them in any manner. 6. He further argues that his wife has valuable properties in her name; and that his daughters are taking “tuition classes” to earn for themselves; thus he being not liable to provide for them in any manner. 6. Contending as afore, the appellant as RW1, in his testimony conceded that he has 50 cents of land, along with 26.05 cents of other properties, but alleged that he is not in a position to use the same, since they are all under attachment at the hands of his daughters. 7. In response, however, the specific case of the respondents is that the appellant is not medically incapacitated, as asserted by him; and that the medical documents on record, namely, Exts.B4 and B5, would only show that he had some cardiac issue in the past. The mother of the children testified as PW2, to confirm that she is drawing pension and that she received Rs.10,00,000/- as retiral benefits; but explained that she had used it all for the education, medical and other expenses of her children. 8. The respondents - children also contended that their father had, in fact, offered to convey either 25 cents of landed property in their names, or to pay Rs.25,00,000/- to each of them, by selling the said property, towards the marriage expenses; and pointed out that, even in his pleadings, he has made this concession, agreeing that he will honour such amounts, as and when they are to be married. They assert that, since they are facing uncertainty in life, they have not been able to find life partners and that they can do so only if the appellant honours his words. 9. The learned Family Court allowed O.P.No.31/2016, finding conclusively that the appellant is liable to take care of his children and to provide for their maintenance, as also for their marriage expenses; while, it dismissed O.P No.863/2016, concluding that the case of the appellant - that he does not have the financial means, or physical condition to earn enough to honour the maintenance earlier ordered through the decree in O.P.No.1844/2003 - to be incorrect. It further concluded - in our view, correctly, as we will presently state - that a fresh Original Petition, to modify the decree in an earlier Original Petition, is not maintainable. 10. It further concluded - in our view, correctly, as we will presently state - that a fresh Original Petition, to modify the decree in an earlier Original Petition, is not maintainable. 10. We have heard Sri.Ajeesh S.Brite –learned counsel for the appellant in both cases; and Sri.A.G Syam Kumar for the respondents. 11. As indicated above, it is expressly admitted by the appellant that he had earlier suffered a decree in O.P.No.1844/2003, wherein, he was directed to pay certain amounts towards maintenance to the respondents and their mother, as also a lump-sum figure towards past maintenance. His assertion is that he is unable to honour the same on account of his “debilitating” medical condition and hence that he is entitled to seek its modification. It does not require this Court to expatiate, that an attempt to modify a decree in an earlier Original Petition, through a subsequent Original Petition, is not maintainable; and this has been correctly found that the learned Family Court. 12. Coming to the claim of the respondents, in Mat.Appeal No.472/2021, they were 26 and 24 years in age at the time when they filed O.P.No.31/2016 seeking amounts towards marriage expenses from their father – the appellant. As seen above, the defence built by the appellant is that he is not well and that their mother is earning enough to take care of the respondents, particularly that she is drawing pension and has also benefited from a Rs.30,00,000/- retirement package. 13. However, it is pertinent that, even going by the evidence of RW1, as also his pleadings, he unequivocally accepts that he is obligated to pay for the marriage expenses of his daughters and that he is willing to do so, but only at the time when their marriages are finalised. Therefore, this is not a case where the appellant denies his obligation as the father to pay marriage expenses to his daughters; but where he says that he will do so when their marriages are fixed, though arguing that their mother is doing well fiscally. 14. However, the evidence of PW2 is specific to the effect that her monthly pension is only Rs.15,000/-, which is insufficient to take care of the food, medical, health and other expendables of the three of them; and further that the entire retiral benefits received by her was spend for the education and medical expenses of her children. 14. However, the evidence of PW2 is specific to the effect that her monthly pension is only Rs.15,000/-, which is insufficient to take care of the food, medical, health and other expendables of the three of them; and further that the entire retiral benefits received by her was spend for the education and medical expenses of her children. This evidence remains uncontroverted and without being impeached in any manner; and we see no reason why the learned Family Court could not have accepted it, as it has done. 15. That apart, incredulously, the case of the appellant - father is that his daughters are also doing well and that they are finding income on their own, taking “tuition classes”. We fail to comprehend how the appellant could have impelled such a contention, particularly when he himself unreservedly admitted in his pleadings and testimony as RW1, that he is liable to pay “reasonable marriage expenses” for his daughters and that he will do so when their marriages are fixed. 16. Moving on further, it is also conceded - as manifest from Exts.A1 to A5 - that the appellant has landed properties of at least 76.6 cents; but, he then says that he is unable to use it on account of the orders of attachment issued by the learned Family Court. Furthermore, he testified that he was working in a foreign country for a considerably long period of time and that he returned, to marry again, though his first marriage with the mother of the respondents was subsisting. This specifically admitted factual factor would be sufficient to hold that the appellant is financially capable to take a second wife and provide for her and their family. When the appellant does not have any case that he took his second wife without being financially capable of doing so, one fails to fathom how he can now contend that he is not liable to pay the amounts as have been decreed against him by the learned Family Court. 17. That leaves us with the question as to the correctness of the quantum of the amounts found by the learned Family Court against the appellant. 17. That leaves us with the question as to the correctness of the quantum of the amounts found by the learned Family Court against the appellant. We notice that he has been directed to pay Rs.20,00,000/- each to the respondents herein towards their marriage expenses within a period of three months from the date of decree, and to pay interest on it, at the rate of 6% per annum if he doesn’t to do so. 18. It must be borne in mind that the respondents have made a claim for Rs.50,00,000/- each, towards their marriage expenses and this is stated to be commensurate to the living standards they were used to. It also reflected on the status and the financial condition of the appellant, which he admitted to be while he was abroad; and we cannot, therefore, find the decree for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- each to the children, to be excessive - particularly now, by the march of time. The decree was issued on 23.03.2021 and the value of money has considerably escalated in the last five years, which also persuade us to confirm the decree as issued. However, we propose to give an opportunity to the appellant to deposit the amount within a time frame that we fix, so as to spare him of the burden of interest. 19. For the afore reasons, we have little doubt that Mat Appeal No.382/2021 - which is against the judgment and decree of the learned Family Court in O.P.No.863/2016 - is liable to be dismissed; while, Mat Appeal No.472/2021 is deserving of being modified to a limited extent. In the result, a) Mat. Appeal No.382/2021 is dismissed; but without making any order as to costs. b) Mat. Appeal No.472/2021 is partly allowed, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Family Court, Attingal; but modifying it, granting three months time from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment to the appellant, to pay the amount decreed; failing which, he will be liable to pay interest on the said amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the impugned judgment and decree, until it is realised.