Skip to main content
Iowa Judicial Branch
Main Content

Case No. 20-0090

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.

County:
Dubuque

Applicants

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 Applicants

Andrew B. Howie
Darin S. Harmon
Jeremy N. Gallagher

Attorneys for Resister

Jenny L. Weiss

Supreme Court

Oral Argument Schedule

15-15-5

Jan 19, 2022 9:30 AM

Briefs

Supreme Court Opinion

Opinion Number:
20-0090
Date Published:
Mar 18, 2022
Date Amended:
May 20, 2022

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals Opinion

Opinion Number:
20-0090
Date Published:
Jan 21, 2021
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.

Other Information

Date Retained:
Mar 31, 2021
© 2023 Iowa Judicial Branch. All Rights Reserved.