IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 157 of 2009()
1. ABDUL RASHEED SAKHAFI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SHAMEERA, W/O ABDUL RASHEED SAKHAFI,
... Respondent
2. FATHIMATH SANEEYYA(MINOR),
3. FATHIMATH NAFIHA(MINOR),
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :05/06/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.P(FC) NO.157 of 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009
O R D E R
————–
This revision is in challenge of maintenance awarded to
respondent No.1, wife at the rate of Rs,2,000/- per month. Petitioner
married respondent No.1 on 11.7.2004. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are
born in that wedlock. Respondent No.1 alleged in the petition for
maintenance that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty
and that petitioner neglected and refused to maintain herself and the
children. She claimed that she was assaulted by the petitioner due
to which she had to be hospitalized and on the information given by
her police registered crime No.367 of 2008 for offence punishable
under Section 498A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against
petitioner and others. She therefore claimed maintenance from the
petitioner. According to her, petitioner is the Khatheeb of a mosque
earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He is engaged in administering
medicines and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He has also landed
properties. He used to visit foreign countries often. Petitioner denied
the allegation of ill-treatment and made an offer to maintain
respondents. He also denied the allegation regarding his income.
Both sides adduced evidence in support of their respective contention.
R.P(FC) No.157 of 2009
-: 2 :-
Court below observed that there is no offer to take back respondent
No.1 and children, petitioner has sufficient means and ordered
maintenance to respondents at the rate of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.700/- and
Rs.500/- respectively. Order of maintenance to respondent No.1 alone
is under challenge in this revision. Learned counsel submitted that
in the counter statement there was an offer to take back respondents.
He also submitted that as per the salary certificate produced by the
petitioner his income is only Rs.3,000/- per month.
2. Assuming that there was an offer to take back respondent
No.1 and maintain herself and the children bona fides of that offer
has to be doubted. It has come in evidence that alleging assault police
has registered a case against petitioner and others. Respondent No.1
gave evidence that due to physical assault she had to undergo
hospitalization and treatment. Going by the evidence of respondent
No.1 it is seen that petitioner offered to pay maintenance to
respondent No.1 at the rate of Rs.700/- per month or even a little more
and at the rate of Rs.400/- each to respondent Nos.2 and 3. If really
petitioner wanted the company of respondent No.1 he need not have
offered maintenance to her which indicated that he is not against
respondent No.1 living separately. Moreover, he has not taken
R.P(FC) No.157 of 2009
-: 3 :-
effective steps to get back the company of respondent No.1 In these
circumstances court below is justified in finding that respondent No.1
is entitled to separate residence and maintenance.
3. So far as capacity of petitioner to pay maintenance to
respondent No1 is concerned even if it is assumed that salary
certificate produced by him mentioned only Rs.3,000/- per month it
has come in evidence that he is a religious scholar and used to visit
foreign countries often. Evidence shows that he has sufficient means
and at any rate he is capable of earning. Maintenance granted to
respondent No.1 is Rs.2,000/- per month. She was aged 22 during
2008. I am inclined to think that having regard to the basic needs of a
woman aged 22 years Rs.2,000/- per month is not a luxury for her
requiring interference by this Court.
There is not merit in the revision. It fails and is dismissed.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.4410 of 2009 shall stand
dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv