High Court Kerala High Court

N. Pankajakshan vs Ananda Bai Geetha on 9 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
N. Pankajakshan vs Ananda Bai Geetha on 9 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RPFC.No. 69 of 2009()


1. N. PANKAJAKSHAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ANANDA BAI GEETHA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ARYA, AGED 11 YEARS,

3. ASHA, KALATHARIKATHU VEEDU,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.V.SREEJITH

                For Respondent  :SRI.G.SUDHEER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :09/02/2010

 O R D E R
                       M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                 R.P.(F.C.) NO. 69       OF 2009
                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
         Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010.

                            O R D E R

This revision is preferred by the husband against the

order of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram in M.C.134/02.

The Family Court directed the husband to pay a maintenance

at the rate of Rs.500/- to the wife and Rs.750/- each to the

children from 24.4.02 till 18.8.2008 and at the rate of

Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of order. It is against

that decision the husband has come up in revision.

2. An unfortunate couple in the late evening of their

life who started life on extreme love had now fallen apart and

the litigation is in progress. Two children are born in the

wedlock as well. A reading of the counter of the husband

would reveal that he is attributing unchastity on the wife and

he would even allege that she had relationship with somebody

else even prior to their marriage. In a society ladies consider

chastity as their main quality and when anybody attributes

charges of unchastity certainly it will amount to worst form of

R.P.(F.C.) NO. 69 OF 2009
-:2:-

cruelty which a wife cannot bear. I do not want any other

particulars to arrive at a decision that the husband has been

unkind to the wife especially in the back drop that he had not

proved even a solitary instance of unchastity. So she is

entitled to live separately.

3. Now regarding the quantum. The husband was an

employee namely Peon in the Travancore Devaswom Board.

He had retired on 11.4.07 and thereafter he is receiving a

pension of Rs.2,137/-. The common house which they were

residing is now in the possession of the wife and children and

the husband has to leave that place as well. The Family Court

held that he has to find out an avocation and maintain the wife

and children. The Family Court also found that he is a heart

patient who requires treatment. Just because a person is seen

sitting in a bakery one cannot confer ownership of the bakery

on him in the absence of any evidence. So materials available

to prove the income of the husband after retirement is not

very much there and that has to be taken note of by a court.

Till April 2007 he was an employee and he had received

R.P.(F.C.) NO. 69 OF 2009
-:3:-

salary from the Travancore Devaswom Board. Further it has

to be stated that the present petition is filed on 24.2.2002.

Therefore from the materials available the order of

maintenance has to be compartmentalized as one prior to

retirement and the other subsequent to the retirement. The

quantum awarded by the Family Court at the rate of Rs.500/-

to the wife and Rs.750/- each to the children be paid from

24.4.2002 till 30.4.2007 and thereafter considering the

nominal income the husband derives along with the fact that

he has also to make his both ends meet coupled with the

treatment for heart ailment I direct him to pay at the rate of

Rs.500/- each to the wife and the minor children that is from

1.5.2007 onwards. If situation improves and there are

changes as contemplated u/s 127 of the Cr.P.C. the wife and

children can move the Court for variation.

4. I am informed that execution petitions are pending

and let it be permitted to be kept pending and in the mean

time let the husband pay the amount ordered in five equal

monthly instalments and if there is default of any two

R.P.(F.C.) NO. 69 OF 2009
-:4:-

consecutive instalments let the benefit conferred be forfeited

and the Family Court proceed to realise the amount in the

execution petition. I also make it clear all the amounts paid in

the form of interim maintenance or as per the orders of the

Court shall be given credit to and the balance need be

deposited in five monthly instalments.

R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of accordingly.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

ul/-