In re the Marriage of Suraj George Pazhoor and Hancy Chennikkara Pazhoor, Upon the Petition of Suraj George Pazhoor
v.
And Concerning Hancy Chennikkara f/k/a Hancy Chennikkara Pazhoor
Hancy Chennikkara appeals from the district court’s decree dissolving her marriage to Suraj Pazhoor. She argues the court erred by ordering shared physical care of the parties’ children, ordering spousal support that was inequitable and contrary to Iowa caselaw, calculating Suraj’s medical support obligation, and failing to award Hancy attorney’s fees.
Applicant
In re the Marriage of Suraj George Pazhoor and Hancy Chennikkara Pazhoor, Upon the Petition of Suraj George Pazhoor
Resister
And Concerning Hancy Chennikkara f/k/a Hancy Chennikkara Pazhoor
Attorneys for the Applicant
Andrew B. Howie
Darin S. Harmon
Jeremy N. Gallagher
Attorney for the Resister
Jenny L. Weiss
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
15-15-5
Jan 19, 2022 9:30 AM
Briefs
Supreme Court Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Date Amended:
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Michael J. Shubatt, Judge. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. Heard by Mullins, P.J., and May and Schumacher, JJ. Opinion by Mullins, P.J. (21 pages)
Hancy Chennikkara appeals the decree dissolving her marriage to Suraj Pazhoor. Hancy argues the court erred in (1) placing the parties’ children in their shared physical care, (2) awarding her an inadequate spousal-support award, (3) calculating Suraj’s medical-support obligation, and (4) not awarding her attorney fees. Hancy requests an award of appellate attorney fees. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the court’s award of shared physical care. We modify the district court’s spousal-support award. We agree with Hancy that Suraj is not entitled to a deduction for the health-insurance premium attributable to the children, as it is already deducted to reach Suraj’s gross income. We modify Suraj’s child-support obligation based on our calculation of Hancy’s income, modification of spousal support, and conclusion Suraj is not entitled to a deduction for the health-insurance premium attributable to the children. We affirm the denial of Hancy’s request for trial attorney fees, but we award Hancy appellate attorney fees in the amount of $3000.00. Costs on appeal are assessed to Suraj.