IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 282 of 2009()
1. HYDERALI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MARIYAM
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :28/07/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.P(FC) No.282 of 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009
O R D E R
————–
This revision is in challenge of the order dated 9.1.2008 in M.C.
No.487 of 2007 of the Family Court, Malappuram. As per that order
petitioner was directed to pay maintenance to his wife and son at the
rate of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.800/- respectively, per month.
2. It is not disputed that petitioner married respondent No.1
on 20.1.1994 and respondent No.2 was born in that wedlock.
Respondents claimed that petitioner subjected respondent No.1 to
cruelty and harassment and neglected and refused to maintain them.
Presently petitioner is working abroad earning Rs.30,000/- per month.
He has landed properties also from which he is getting Rs.25,000/- per
month. Petitioner claimed that respondent No.1 has gone away from
him without valid reason. She filed complaint against petitioner and
others for offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code. He claimed that his salary is Rs.5,500/- per month and does not
own any landed properties. He was looking after respondent No.2.
Parties adduced evidence in the court below. Learned Judge found
that respondent No.1 is entitled to have separate residence and
maintenance and directed petitioner to pay maintenance as aforesaid.
It is contended that the order is not legal or proper.
R.P(FC) No.282 of 2009
-: 2 :-
3. It is not disputed by petitioner also that he has married
another lady. That gave respondent No.1 right for separate
residence. She has also given evidence regarding cruelty and
harassment which the court below accepted and which I find no reason
to interfere. So far as respondent No.2 is concerned, he is entitled to
get maintenance from petitioner irrespective of the propriety of his
custody. He was aged only 11 years at the time of filing the
application. Therefore respondents are entitled to get maintenance.
4. It is admitted that petitioner is working abroad. In this
revision also he is appearing through his power of attorney holder.
He did not produce document to show that his salary is only Rs.5,500/-
per month as claimed by him. Petitioner ought to have produced
relevant documents to show his income. That has not been done.
Moreover, amount awarded in favour of respondent No.1 aged 32
years is only Rs.1,500/- per month and to respondent No.2 aged 11
years is only Rs.800/- per month. The said amounts are not
excessive or beyond the reach of petitioner so as to call for
interference in revision at the hands of petitioner. There is no merit in
the revision and is only to be dismissed.
Revision petition is dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv
R.P(FC) No.282 of 2009
-: 3 :-
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
===================
CRL. R.P. NO. OF 2000
===================
O R D E R
JUNE, 2009