Loading...
Responsive image

Kavungal Abdul Majeed vs Mattan Fathimabi on 22 May, 2008

Kerala High Court
Kavungal Abdul Majeed vs Mattan Fathimabi on 22 May, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RPFC.No. 118 of 2008()


1. KAVUNGAL ABDUL MAJEED,AGED 32 YEARS
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MATTAN FATHIMABI,AGED 23 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. FASMILA, AGED 7 YEARS,(MINOR)

3. FASIL, AGED 3 YEARS, (MINOR)

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.MUJEEB

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :22/05/2008

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J
                           ----------------------
                       R.P.F.C.No.118 of 2008
                     ----------------------------------------
                Dated this the 22nd day of May 2008


                                O R D E R

This revision petition is directed against an order passed

under Section 125 Cr.P.C to oblige the petitioner to pay monthly

maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.700/- and Rs.500/-

respectively to his wife and two minor children.

2. Marriage and paternity are admitted. That the wife went

away to her house is also admitted. According to the wife,

matrimonial cruelty had compelled her to take up separate

residence. It is admitted that subsequent to the commencement of

the separate residence, the petitioner had married twice though he

hastens to add that he had divorced the two wives married in both

subsequent marriages. The petitioner claimed that he was

maintaining the claimants. The claimant/wife examined herself as

PW1 and the petitioner examined himself as RW1. The learned

Judge of the Family Court in these circumstances came to the

conclusion that the claimants are entitled for maintenance at the

rates indicated above. Accordingly the learned Judge proceeded to

pass the impugned order. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by

the impugned order.

R.P.F.C.No.118/08 2

3. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the claimants are now residing along with

the petitioner in the same house. There is absolutely nothing to

justify this contention though it is pointed out that the address of

the petitioner shown is the same as the address of the respondent.

Be that as it may, even assuming that they are sharing the same

roof, there is nothing to show that the petitioner is making

payments and amounts for the maintenance of the claimants. In

these circumstances, even the alleged fact that the estranged

couple share the same roof cannot justify the claim for absolution

from the liability under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The only other question

is about the quantum of maintenance awarded. Rs.1,000/- per

mensum to the wife aged 23 years and Rs.700/- and Rs.500/-

respectively for the children aged 6 years and 3 years on the date of

the petition is found to be absolutely justified and consistent with

the evidence available about the needs of the claimants and the

means of the petitioner. In any view of the matter, the quantum

awarded does not also warrant interference by invoking the

revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction.

4. This revision petition is in these circumstances

dismissed.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr

R.P.F.C.No.118/08 3

R.P.F.C.No.118/08 4

R.BASANT, J

R.P.F.C.No.

ORDER

11/02/2008

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information