IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 223 of 2008()
1. SANTHOSH KUMAR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SMT.SINDU
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.IYPE JOSEPH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :25/07/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.P.F.C.No. 223 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008
O R D E R
In this R.P.F.C. the petitioner assails a direction issued to
him under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to pay maintenance to his wife at
the rate of Rs.500/- p.m. The claim was filed as early as in 2002.
The impugned order was passed long later on 20.2.2008. A lot
of events took place during the pendency of the petition. The
claimant wife secured an order of divorce from the Family Court
in the mean time and she ceased to be the wife from 15.5.2006.
During the pendency of the petition, she got re-married also on
10.2.2008. The learned Judge of the Family Court came to the
conclusion that the claimant wife is therefore entitled for
maintenance only from 15.5.2006 till 10.2.2008. There was
some evidence to show that the claimant wife was also having
some employment, though the evidence did not specifically and
squarely cover the period 15.5.2006 to 10.2.2008. It was in
these circumstances that the learned Judge came to the
R.P.F.C.No. 223 of 2008
2
conclusion that there can be a direction for payment of maintenance
from 15.5.2006 to 10.2.2008 at the rate of Rs.500/- p.m.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance?
The learned counsel submits that, at any rate, during the period
15.5.2006 to 10.2.2008 it must have been held that the claimant wife
was not unable to maintain herself. She did have an employment of
her own, which was sufficient to take care of her requirement for
maintenance.
3. In the nature of the materials that were available before the
court below, I am unable to agree that the direction to pay the meager
amount of Rs.500/- as maintenance from the date of divorce to the
date of re-marriage can, in any view of the matter, be held to be
excessive or unjustified. I am not persuaded to agree that the said
direction warrants any interference.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the
pendency of the proceedings payments have been made towards
R.P.F.C.No. 223 of 2008
3
maintenance for the above period. If any such payment has been
made, needless to say, credit shall be given to the said amount.
5. This R.P.F.C. Is accordingly dismissed with the above
observations.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm