IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 413 of 2007()
1. KALLINGAL ELAYODATH MOIDEEN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VALLIKKATTU VALAPPIL JAMEELA,AGED 29
... Respondent
2. RASHA SAHAD, AGED 7 YEARS,(MINOR)
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
For Respondent :SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :11/03/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
...........................................
R.P.(F.C).No.413 OF 2007
.............................................
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010.
O R D E R
This revision is preferred against the order of the
Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.No.703/2006. The wife
and son moved an application for maintenance against the
revision petitioner and the court below granted maintenance
at the rate of Rs.1,500/= to the wife and Rs.750/= to the
child from the date of the MC. It is against that decision,
the husband has come up in revision.
2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. The
learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend
that there is no valid ground to live separately and
secondly the quantum awarded is excessive. It is the case of
the wife that the husband at the time of marrying her had
suppressed the factum and when she was brought to the
house, the first wife was not in the house and she was told
about the fact that really the first wife was very serious in
health. It is also contended that the first wife, mother and
the revision petitioner used to ill treat her and had deprived
: 2 :
R.P.(F.C).No.413 OF 2007
of her ornaments etc. The court below noted the conduct of
the husband even from the court. When she gives some
version against the husband, he got irritated and threatened
her that he will kick her when he comes out of the court.
This is the basic attitude which the court found.
Considering the age of the child when a question was put
whether he was studying in school and in which standard
he was studying, the revision petitioner was not able to
give any answer which indicate how truthful he had been
towards his wife and child. Therefore the version of PW1
regarding the reason to live separately cannot be said to be
incorrect.
3. The next question is regarding the quantum. The
learned counsel for the revision petitioner had produced
some photographs to show that the revision petitioner is
disabled. The revision petitioner had filed a very detailed
counter affidavit before the court and no contention is
raised regarding any of the disabilities before the court
below.
4. The court exercising the revisional jurisdiction has
: 3 :
R.P.(F.C).No.413 OF 2007
only the limited power to look into the impropriety or
illegality of the order passed and therefore at this point of
time this Court cannot entertain such contentions. But I
find from the materials available that there is no proper
evidence to show what his income would be. The wife
would submit that he is running a foreign goods shop and
had landed properties and deriving a very sizable income,
but no positive materials are available to establish that fact.
There is only oath against oath and the only probability
that can be weighed with the court is that he is a man
married and he has got three daughters in his first wife
and a mother who are being regularly maintained by him.
When he marriages second time, it is his responsibility to
look after that wife also comfortably and happily. They
have to survive as well. He cannot get out of the
responsibility of maintaining the wife and child. Considering
the materials available, I think that little leniency can be
shown as no adequate materials available to show his
approximate income.
5. Therefore, I modify the award by reducing the
: 4 :
R.P.(F.C).No.413 OF 2007
maintenance from Rs.1,500/= to Rs.1,000/= and retain the
maintenance amount ordered to the child at Rs.750/=
payable from the date of petition
6. In the result, the revision is partly allowed and the
order of maintenance granted in favour of the wife is reduced
from Rs.1,500/= to Rs.1,000/= and that of the child is
retained at Rs.750/= payable from the date of the petition.
The mother is authorised to receive the maintenance
amount on behalf of the child. If any amount is paid or
deposited, that shall be given credit to.
Disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE
cl
: 5 :
R.P.(F.C).No.413 OF 2007