IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP(Family Court) No. 194 of 2006()
1. ABBAS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ISHAKUTTY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.ANIL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :13/09/2006
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.P.(F.C).No. 194 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2006
O R D E R
This revision petition is directed against an order directing
payment of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at the rate of
Rs. 400/- and Rs.200/- p.m. respectively to the claimants, admittedly
the wife, aged 33 years, and minor child, aged 3 years, of the
petitioner.
2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted.
There is no contention that the petitioner is willing to maintain the
wife on condition that she lives with him. The only contention raised
is that the petitioner is not having sufficient means. He is a deaf and
dumb person. He is hence unable to work. The claimant wife is
having employment. She is not a person unable to maintain herself.
The quantum of maintenance claimed is at any rate excessive.
3. The parties went to trial on these contentions. The first
claimant examined herself as PW1. She examined a witness as PW2.
R.P.(F.C).No. 194 of 2006 2
The petitioner herein examined his father as DW1. Exts.A1 to A4
were marked on the side of the claimants and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked
on the side of the petitioner herein.
4. The court below, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant
inputs, came to the conclusion that notwithstanding the fact that the
petitioner is a deaf and dumb person, he is in a position to work and earn
his livelihood and support his wife and child. It is accordingly that the
court below proceeded to pass the impugned order.
5. The counsel reiterates the contention that the petitioner is ill and
disabled. It is evident that he had undertaken the responsibilities of
marriage and parentage fully conscious of his physical limitations. The
evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 as also Exts.A1 and A2 establish beyond the pale
of controversy that the petitioner is in a position to work and earn his
livelihood. Not a semblance of doubt is aroused in the mind of the court
about such competence of the petitioner to work and earn his livelihood. It
is evident from the depositions of PWs. 1 and 2 duly supported by Exts.A1
and A2 that the petitioner undertook the responsibility of marriage and
R.P.(F.C).No. 194 of 2006 3
paternity fully conscious of his physical disability. There is nothing to
show that the claimants have any means of livelihood.
6. Coming to the quantum of maintenance, the amount awarded is
only Rs.400/- and Rs.200/- p.m. respectively. The learned Judge of the
Family Court has been indulgent and lenient to a fault in fixing the
maintenance amount at that rate in the light of the evidence which is
available. At any rate, I am satisfied that no interference with the quantum
of maintenance is necessary by invoking the revisional jurisdiction at the
instance of the petitioner.
5. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a huge liability to pay arrears
from the date of the petition. The petitioner may be granted instalment
facility, it is prayed. It is for the petitioner to make such request before the
learned Judge of the Family Court and I have no reason to believe that if
the petitioner shows his bonafides by depositing substantial portion of the
amount, the learned Judge would not consider the request of the petitioner
for time to pay the balance amount.
R.P.(F.C).No. 194 of 2006 4
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm