JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran , J. The appellant is the father of the respondent and he assails the judgment of the learned Family Court, Kollam, in OP (Others) No.1477/2017 dated 30.08.2022. 2. The afore Original Petition was filed by the respondent seeking that the appellant be ordered to pay her monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- from 03.01.2004, to 03.01.2010; at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month from 04.01.2010 to 04.12.2017; and beyond that, at the rate of Rs.25,000/-, until she is married. She also sought Rs.50 lakhs for her marriage expenses. 3. The respondent was only about 13 years old at the time when the Original Petition was filed and we are told that she is today a woman of 21 years in age. 4. The learned Family Court allowed the Original Petition, after evaluating the evidence on record, ordering the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.20 lakhs towards marriage expenses of his daughter; along with Rs.15,000/- as monthly maintenance for a period of three years prior to the date of petition, being 04.12.2017, and thereafter at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per month till her marriage or until she gets employment. 5. Smt.K.Latha – appearing for the appellant, argued that the learned Family Court has fixed the afore figures without taking into account the factum of her client suffering from impecuniousness because, his monthly income from a daily wage employment he has with the Fisheries is only to a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, as evident from Ext.B2; while, he has no landed properties or assets in his name. She, however, conceded that the appellant's father had large extents of landed property and that consequent to his death in 2016, he inherited 1/4 th of the same, along with his mother and two sisters; but that he has been incapacitated from dealing with it in any manner since they are all now under legal processes within the ambit of the Kerala Land Reforms Act . She submitted that, therefore, the learned Family Court ought not to have awarded the amounts as it has done now, without adverting to the financial position of her client; and prayed that, therefore, this appeal be allowed and the decree be set aside. 6. She submitted that, therefore, the learned Family Court ought not to have awarded the amounts as it has done now, without adverting to the financial position of her client; and prayed that, therefore, this appeal be allowed and the decree be set aside. 6. Sri.M.P.Ramnath – learned counsel for the respondent, however, vehemently refuted the afore submissions, saying that there is nothing on record – be that in the evidence or in the pleadings – that the properties inherited by the appellant stand burdened with any obligation under the Land Reforms Act. He pointed out that this assertion has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant for the first time now and does not even form part of the pleadings. He supplemented, by saying that, in fact, the “written objections” filed by the appellant before the learned Family Court is to the effect that, though he has inherited large extents of property from his father after his unfortunate demise, he is not obligated to pay any amount as maintenance or marriage expenses to his daughter because she and her mother (his divorced wife) had deserted him much earlier. He argued that, apart from the factum of the above imputation being totally untrue, the only case projected by the appellant is that he is not obligated in law to maintain either his wife or his child. He argued that since this is untenable, the learned Family Court is without error in having rejected the same and in having awarded the amounts, as it has done in the impugned judgment. 7. Sri.M.P.Ramnath, thereafter, submitted that his client has filed the afore Cross Objections because the learned Family Court has confined the order of maintenance in his client's favour for a period of three years prior to the date of petition, namely from 04.12.2017; and that this has been done under a wrong impression that the period of limitation would apply in such manner. He contended that, going by Section 6 of the Limitation Act 1963, his client - being a minor at the time when the Original Petition was filed, was fully entitled to claim maintenance from the time of her birth until she is married and hence that the learned Court has gravely erred in decreeing in the afore fashion. He contended that, going by Section 6 of the Limitation Act 1963, his client - being a minor at the time when the Original Petition was filed, was fully entitled to claim maintenance from the time of her birth until she is married and hence that the learned Court has gravely erred in decreeing in the afore fashion. He prayed that, therefore, this appeal be dismissed and the Cross Objections be allowed, directing the appellant to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- from 03.01.2004 to 03.01.2010; further, at the rate of Rs.20,000/- from 04.01.2010 to 04.12.2017; and thereafter at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month until she is married. 8. We have examined the impugned judgment and notice that the Original Petition was disposed of along with OP (Others) 719/2016, which was filed by the wife of the appellant seeking return of her gold and patrimony. Obviously, the evidence on record covers both the cases and not solely the one that we are presently concerned with. 9. Going by the evidence on record, the appellant deposed as RW1; while, the mother of the respondent as PW1. Two more witnesses were cited on the side of the mother of the respondent, namely PW2 and PW3, but they were essentially with respect to her claim for return of gold. The learned Court also marked Exts.A1 to A5 documents on the side of the mother of the respondent, and Exts.B1 to B3 on the side of the appellant herein; and again, as we have said above, most of them relate to the former's claim against the latter. 10. As noticed above, the primary thrust of the arguments of Smt.K.Latha is that her client does not have the financial capacity to pay the amounts ordered against him; and that the learned Family Court did not advert to his objections filed before it to the effect that he has no property of his own, while his monthly income is as mentioned in Ext.B2, namely to a sum of Rs.10,000/- or so. 11. However, when one reads the objections filed by the appellant before the learned Family Court, he admits that, though he does not have any self-acquired property, he “has inherited the properties of his father along with his mother and sisters with equal rights and they need not have to snatch away the respondent's share (sic). 11. However, when one reads the objections filed by the appellant before the learned Family Court, he admits that, though he does not have any self-acquired property, he “has inherited the properties of his father along with his mother and sisters with equal rights and they need not have to snatch away the respondent's share (sic). We must record herein his reference as “they” is to his wife and daughter, insinuating that they are trying to “snatch away” his share in the property. He then averred that the respondent's mother is a doctor, hence having an income of her own and therefore, that he is not obliged, in any manner, to pay maintenance to either of them. He also contended - which the learned Family Court accepted, but in our view, incorrectly – that his daughter is not entitled to realise any amount towards past maintenance for more than three years prior to the filing of the Original Petition and further that “he has no income or job right now and is not in a position to pay any amount” (sic). 12. It is thus ineluctable from the pleadings of the appellant himself that, he has never pleaded impecuniousness or incapacity to pay, except saying that he has no self-acquired property and is earning only as per Ext.B2, to a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. He, however, has kept away information – after unequivocally admitting that he has acquired inherited property from his father - as to its worth and capacity to generate income, which is crucial because, when he makes admission qua inheritance, it is upon him to have filed a detailed declaration of assets and liabilities, which admittedly, he has not done. 13. Interestingly, it is only the submission of Smt.K.Latha - his learned counsel, that all the properties which he has inherited – which concededly is to a large extent, including a residential house comprised of in 50 cents – is burdened by proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act . However, there is neither any documentary evidence available in substantiation; nor did the appellant testify to such effect, when he deposed as RW1. 14. However, there is neither any documentary evidence available in substantiation; nor did the appellant testify to such effect, when he deposed as RW1. 14. To add to this, the manner of his objections before the learned Family Court - which was filed on 10.10.2019 - indubitably cast a cloud on his present assertion that there are proceedings over the property under the Land Reforms Act, especially when his learned counsel further asserts that such had commenced much before her client's father's demise in the year 2016. One cannot grant imprimatur to such self serving statements made before this Court. 15. Once we have found so, our surviving consideration are whether the amounts now ordered by the learned Family Court are commensurate or otherwise; and if the Cross Objections deserve to be ordered. 16. First, on the aspect impelled in the Cross Objection, the learned Family Court has rejected the respondent's plea for maintenance from the time of her birth - even though the appellant does not even have a whisper in his case that he had provided any amount for her from then - solely for the reason that the said respondent is not legally entitled to claim any amount prior to three years of her petition. This, in our firm view, is on account of misdirection qua the provisions of the Limitation Act , especially when it relates to a minor suing her father for maintenance. We have little doubt that, going by Section 6 of the Limitation Act , the Cross Objector/respondent was fully entitled to seek the maintenance from the time of her birth. We obviously cannot find the findings of the learned Family Court contrary to this, to be correct. 17. Coming to the second issue, namely qua the quantum of amounts eligible, as evident from the impugned judgment, the learned Court has awarded Rs.20 lakhs to the respondent/Cross Objector towards marriage expenses and for this, we see that it has been swayed by the extent of land that the appellant is stated to be owning on inheritance from his father. As regards the monthly maintenance, the learned Court has awarded Rs.15,000/- per month from about 2014, till the date of filing of the petition, namely in 2017; and thereafter at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per month, till the date of her marriage, or till she obtains gainful employment. 18. As regards the monthly maintenance, the learned Court has awarded Rs.15,000/- per month from about 2014, till the date of filing of the petition, namely in 2017; and thereafter at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per month, till the date of her marriage, or till she obtains gainful employment. 18. Quad Hoc marriage expenses of Rs.20 lakhs, we are of the firm view that the said figure is excessive because, nothing has been placed on record to establish, except the alleged wealth of the father, for the respondent to seek such sum, much less Rs.50 lakhs as claimed in the Original Petition. 19. True, going by the value of gold at this time - which is stated to be about Rs.90,000/- or more per sovereign - the decreed amount would entitle the respondent to gold of about 22 or 23 sovereigns. However, we cannot understand why such a large provision ought to have been made, especially when what is being awarded is marriage expenses and not the cost of gold. Even estimating the requirement of ornaments worth about 10 or 15 sovereigns, the maximum necessary for it would be about Rs.10 lakhs; with perhaps another Rs.5 lakhs to cover other expenses. It is not a requisite that every marriage should be done on a grand scale - to be commensurate to the alleged worth of the father; and in that sense, we are of the view that an amount of Rs.15 lakhs would be sufficient. 20. This is more so, when we are further cognizant that the mother of the child is also working and in a position to provide for her. 21. Coming to the maintenance ordered by the learned Family Court, for the same reason afore – that the mother is earning – we are of the considered opinion that some buden of it should be taken by her also. 22. In that perspective, we find the claim of maintenance by the respondent to a sum of Rs.5,000/- from 03.01.2004 to 03.01.2010 to be completely apposite; while, we refix the maintenance entitled to her from 04.01.2010 to 04.12.2017 to be Rs.10,000/- per month; and thereafter, to be at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month, till she gets married or is able to take care of herself through viable employment. As said afore, since the mother is admittedly working, we are of the definite view that this should be directed to be equally shared by the parents. 23. In such perspective, we allow this appeal in part, modifying the judgment of the learned Family Court in the following manner: (a) The appellant is ordered to pay an amount of Rs.15 lakhs as marriage expenses to the respondent; and if this amount is tendered by him to the latter within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, it shall not carry any interest. If the appellant should, however, fail to make this remittance, then the said amount will carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of this judgment, until it is actually paid. (b) The appellant is directed to pay maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month from 03.01.2004 to 03.01.2010; at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month from 04.01.2010 to 04.12.2017; and at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from 04.01.2018; until she marries or obtains employment viable for her sustenance. Though we do not propose to impose any interest on the afore amounts, since we have modified the judgment, we clarify that if the arrears as ordered above are not cleared within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the entire amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of judgment, until it is paid. The afore appeal and Cross Objection are thus ordered.