V.Pavithran vs Ashalatha on 19 March, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RPFC.No. 174 of 2004()


1. V.PAVITHRAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ASHALATHA, AGED 34 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.SUDHISH

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI

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

 Dated :19/03/2009

 O R D E R
                     M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
                   -------------------------------
               R.P.(FC).NO.174 OF 2004 ()
                 -----------------------------------
        Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009

                           O R D E R

This revision is preferred against the order of the Family

Court, Kozhikode in M.C.No.386/2002. It was an application

filed by the wife for enhancement of maintenance from

Rs.400/- to Rs.1,500/-. The court below granted an amount of

Rs.1,000/-. It is against that decision, the husband has come

up in revision. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant

and perused the records. The husband has got a contention

that the wife is employed and is getting a sum of Rs.750/-, and

therefore, she is not entitled to claim for maintenance. In

support of the same, he produced one document Ext.X1. The

authority of the temple was examined and he had deposed

before the court that it is one Yesoda who is working and not

the wife of the revision petitioner. Therefore, there is no

evidence to prove that she is working.

R.P.(FC).174/04 2

Next question is regarding the quantum. Admittedly,

husband is a fisherman by profession. He has got a contention

that on account of the Marad incident, the boat in which he

was working was destroyed by fire and there is no income for

him now, and therefore, he is not in a position to pay

enhanced maintenance. Though the wife would contend that

the husband is the shared owner of a boat, it is not

established by any documents. The husband is aged 44 years

and the wife is aged 38 years. There is no concrete evidence

to establish that he has got considerable income from the

fishing profession. Therefore, it is only just and reasonable to

enhance the quantum by 100% and not more than that.

Therefore, I modify the order of the Family Court and fix the

maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/- from 25.2.2004. This R.P.

is accordingly partly allowed.

                                      M.N.KRISHNAN
                                            JUDGE

prp

R.P.(FC).174/04    3

     J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ.

——————————————————–

M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 ()

———————————————————

J U D G M E N T

———————————————————

6th November, 2008