IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 164 of 2007(Y)
1. ABDULLA, S/O.MOHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NABEESA, D/O.ABBAS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :19/01/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
...........................................
RP(FC)No.164 OF 2007
.............................................
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010.
O R D E R
This revision is preferred against the order of the
Family Court, Kasaragod in MC.No.301/2005. The wife was
granted maintenance of Rs.750/= by the husband from
30.3.2005. It is against that decision, the husband has
come up in revision. It is the case of the wife that they got
married on 9.1.2003 at Rifathiya Juma Masjid. She was
taken to the matrimonial home where the husband did have
his first wife and children. As the first wife was unwell,
she was made to do all the works and even cohabitation
was prohibited and her life became miserable in the
matrimonial home which forced her to leave that place.
On the other hand, the husband would contend that he had
never married this person and at the most she was only a
servant maid in the house and when her father’s demand
for Rs.15,000/= was negatived, such a false case is cooked
up. In the trial court, Pws1 to 3 and RW1 were examined
and Ext.X1 was marked. The family court on analysis found
in favour of the wife and ordered maintenance.
: 2 :
RP(FC)No.164 OF 2007
2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Learned
counsel for the revision petitioner would submit before me
that materials are lacking to find in favour of the wife.
He would contend that the marriage is not proved. In
support of that contention, the wife had herself examined
as PW1 and two other witnesses, PWs 2 and 3, were also
examined. Ext.X1 is the copy of the Nikah register. It was
produced at the instance of the wife. PW3 is a member of
the Mahal and he had deposed that he had participated in
the marriage and he knows the correctness of the same. He
would also depose that he was not the Secretary at the
relevant point of time but as a member of the Mahal had
participated in the marriage and therefore marriage had
taken place. One Noorudeen was stated to be the middle
man of the marriage. It is true that he had not been
examined. The family court on an exhaustive discussion
found that the husband did not have a proper case at all.
He pretended ignorance with the lady and he changed his
version to that of a servant maid and ultimately cooked up
a false case of demand for Rs.15,000/= by her father. The
: 3 :
RP(FC)No.164 OF 2007
court felt that the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 coupled with
Ext.X1 is more probable. The husband even had gone to the
extend of contending that there was a prohibited degree of
relationship between the parties. But nothing is proved.
Therefore, analysis by the family court cannot be said to be
irregular or illegal or perverse which warrants interference
at the hands of the revisional court.
So far as the quantum is concerned, the court below
found that he has got an income of Rs.5,000/=. Most probably
the court had taken into consideration ailing of the first
wife, children etc and ordered a reasonable sum of Rs.750/=
only to be paid as maintenance to the wife. I find that it
does not call for any interference. Therefore the revision
lacks merit and the same is dismissed. The amount, if any,
already paid shall be adjusted towards the amount due
from the husband to the wife.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE
cl
: 4 :
RP(FC)No.164 OF 2007
: 5 :
RP(FC)No.164 OF 2007