IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP(Family Court) No. 50 of 2003()
1. MANHALANKANDI SUBRAMANNIAN S/O. VASU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VALSALA D/O. PULIKKAL CHATHUNNI
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.MUJEEB
For Respondent :SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :05/11/2007
O R D E R
K.R.UDAYABHANU, J
---------------------------------------------
R.P.(FC) No.50 of 2003
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of November, 2007
O R D E R
The revision petitioner is the respondent/husband in
M.C.No.331/01 the proceedings initiated by the respondent/wife
under Section 125 Crl.P.C. The revision petitioner is under
orders to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month from
the date of petition. It is the contention of the revision petitioner
that the finding of the court below as to the fact that the revision
petitioner married the respondent is erroneous. It is also
contended that there is no reliable evidence as to the alleged
cruelty and also that the quantum of maintenance ordered is
excessive.
2. The petitioner/wife in the M.C. had alleged that she
got married the respondent as per the rites and ceremonies of
the Hindu community on 9.2.1992 and that they were living in
the matrimonial home and a female child was also born in the
wed lock. But the child died after sometime. It is also alleged
that the respondent/revision petitioner misappropriated the gold
RP(FC)50/2003 2
ornaments and Rs.25,000/- given to her by her parents at the
time of marriage. He used to assault her demanding more
money and used to beat her under the influence of liquor. On
11.5.1997, the revision petitioner and his family members
manhandled her and threatened to kill her and she was forced to
leave the house of the revision petitioner. No amount has been
paid so far for maintenance. Subsequently the revision petitioner
married one Sindhu who was employed in his own tailoring shop
and he is getting a monthly income of Rs.5,000/- per month. He
is getting annual income of Rs.15,000/- from his properties as
well. On the other hand, revision petitioner has denied the
alleged remarriage. He has also denied the allegation that he is
having a tailoring shop. According to him, he is only a worker of
the tailoring shop. It is also alleged that the petitioner/wife is
working as a beedi roller and getting Rs.45/- per day.
3. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted of the
testimony of PW1, Exts. P1 to P4 and RW1.
4. PW1, the petitioner, has testified in tune with the
averments in the petition. She has also produced Ext. P1
certified copy of the marriage certificate issued by the Executive
RP(FC)50/2003 3
officer of the Wandoor Devaswam. They had married at Wandoor
Siva temple on 9.2.1992. It is stated that there was also a
criminal proceeding against the revision petitioner, his parents
and sisters for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 506(2) and
498(A) read with Section 34IPC in which the accused were
acquitted. It is stated that in the above proceedings he had not
disputed the fact that the respondent/wife is married to him.
RW1, the revision petitioner, was questioned in C.C.No.369/97
under Section 313 Crl.P.C. and this statement was put to him. In
the above statement he has admitted the matrimonial
relationship. He has not denied his version in Ext. P4 copy of
the 313 statement. The petitioner has also produced Ext. P3
copy of the marriage certificate issued by the Temple Protection
Committee when he married one Sindhu on 15.8.1997.
5. In the circumstances, I find that the subsequent
remarriage by the revision petitioner stands proved. The finding
of the court below that he has admitted the marriage with the
respondent/wife also is only proper. In the circumstances, the
finding of the court below that the respondent/wife is living apart
for sufficient reasons is only to be upheld. So far as the quantum
RP(FC)50/2003 4
of maintenance is concerned the amount of maintenance ordered
i.e., Rs.500/- per month which cannot be said to be excessive.
I find no reason to interfere in the findings of the court below.
The revision petition is dismissed.
K.R.UDAYABHANU,
JUDGE
csl