High Court Kerala High Court

Ebrahim vs Jasmine on 29 February, 2008

Kerala High Court
Ebrahim vs Jasmine on 29 February, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP(Family Court) No. 68 of 2008()


1. EBRAHIM, S/O SAYEED MOHAMMED RAWTHER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. JASMINE, 35 YEARS, D/O MOHAMMED ANEEFA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. MUHAMMED RASHWAN, MINOR 12 YEARS,

3. RAFNA, MINOR 8 YEARS.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :29/02/2008

 O R D E R
                           R. BASANT, J.

            ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                    R.P.F.C. No. 68 OF 2008
            ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
           Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008

                              O R D E R

This revision petition is directed against an order

passed under section 127 Cr.P.C. obliging the petitioner to

pay enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs.750, Rs.600/-

and Rs.500/- respectively to his wife aged 35 years and

children aged 12 years and 8 years respectively.

2. The acrimony between the spouses has a long

history. In MC.59/97 maintenance was awarded to the

claimants at the rate of Rs.300/-, Rs.250/- and Rs.200/- per

month respectively. Enhancement was claimed later and as

per order in MC.50/03 the maintenance amount was

enhanced to Rs.500/-, Rs.400/- and Rs.300/- respectively. It

is in this context that the present application for enhancement

was filed in 2006. There was evidence only of the first

claimant wife on the one side and the petitioner CPW1 on the

other. A medical certificate was produced by the petitioner

R.P.F.C.68/08
: 2 :

herein.

3. The petitioner was admittedly employed abroad

earlier. Now, he has returned from his place of employment.

Conflicting versions are there about the nature of his present

employment. It is admitted that the petitioner is an

autorikshaw driver. The unnecessary controversy whether he

is employed as a conductor as asserted by the claimant or as

an autorikshaw driver as asserted by the petitioner need not

engage us any longer. I am of the opinion that the quantum

of monthly maintenance which is directed to be paid does

appear to be absolutely reasonable, fair and just. The

amounts awarded, it appears to me, to be hardly sufficient to

help the claimants to keep body and soul together. The

amounts awarded are consistent with the meagre evidence

available about the needs of the claimant and the means of

the petitioner herein. The learned counsel for the petitioner

contends that in addition to the liability to maintain the

claimant herein, the petitioner has married again and has one

child in such wedlock. He has to maintain his mother also, it

R.P.F.C.68/08
: 3 :

is submitted. The petitioner’s conduct of voluntarily embracing

the liability to pay maintenance to another wife and child must

certainly give this court an idea about the degree of financial

affluence that he enjoys. In any view of the matter, I am

satisfied that the quantum of maintenance awarded does not

warrant any interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction

of superintendence and correction. This revision petition is

accordingly dismissed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submits

that the petitioner may be given breathing time to make

payment of the arrears due so that he can avoid the

consequence of being imprisoned. The petitioner must show

the bona fides by making a substantial payment and then he

can request the learned Judge to give some further time. No

directions are necessary on that aspect. It is for the petitioner

to move the learned Judge of the Family Court for such relief.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
aks