IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 349 of 2007()
1. MOHAMMED KUNJU, AGED 43 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RUKSANA, AGED 13 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. MOHAMMED SOUD, AGED 7 YEARS,
3. RAMLA, W/O. MUHAMMED KUNJU,
4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
For Respondent :SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :25/02/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
...........................................
R.P.(F.C).No.349 OF 2007
.............................................
Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010.
O R D E R
This revision is preferred against the order of the
Family Court, Ernakulam in M.C.No.83/2006. The wife and
two minor children moved against the revision petitioner for
maintenance and the family court on a consideration of the
materials granted them maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/=
each. The finding on the question of entitlement of
maintenance to the wife as well the quantum awarded to
all are under challenge in this revision.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides.
It has to be stated that the matrimonial relationship is totally
almost broken down and there are four cases pending with
respect to the matrimonial disputes. The court found that
the wife may not be able to live with such a husband and
held that she is entitled to maintenance. It is a finding on fact
which does not suffer from any serious infirmity.
3. Now the learned counsel for the revision petitioner
would submit that he had effected a divorce on the wife. If
: 2 :
R.P.(F.C).No.349 OF 2007
it is so, it is for him to move the appropriate court and it
is not the subject matter of the revision at all. It is also
submitted by the learned counsel for the wife that he had
remarried. That is also the matter which has to be
separately placed before the competent court. So the only
question that survives for determination is regarding the
quantum of maintenance. The learned counsel for the
respondents very strongly urges before me that this Court
shall not interfere with the meagre amount of maintenance
ordered by the family court. I cannot disagree with her
when the learned counsel submits that the amount ordered is
extremely reasonable. But the purport under Section 125
of Cr.P.C is to consider the capacity of the husband also in
fixing the quantum of maintenance and if it is not done, the
order for maintenance will not have the desired result.
Here the husband is a driver by profession in a Government
Department. He would contend that he is having a carry
home salary of Rs.3,350/=. The court found that the salary
after deduction taken into consideration for fixing the
maintenance is Rs.3490/=. One of the daughters is staying
: 3 :
R.P.(F.C).No.349 OF 2007
in an orphanage. The court found that no evidence is
adduced to prove that money is spent for her boarding and
lodging there. The husband would contend that he has to
look after his mother besides an unmarried sister. It is true
that there is social responsibility for the man. But that
social responsibility does not ipso facto give him the right
to abandon his wife and children. Therefore it is desirable
to take into consideration the total materials available. He
is a driver by profession in a Government department. He
has to work long trips. He may have to take food from
outside considering the nature of his avocation. He has to
pay some amount to his mother as well.
4. So taking into consideration all these facts,
reasonable order of maintenance would be Rs.700/= to the
wife and Rs.600/= each to the children. I make it clear that
if there is change of circumstance, the parties can move for
enhancement as well for cancellation.
5. Therefore the revision is disposed of by modifying
the order of maintenance payable by the husband to the wife
at Rs.700/= and Rs.600/= each to the children payable
: 4 :
R.P.(F.C).No.349 OF 2007
from the date of petition. The mother is authorized to
withdraw the amount on behalf of the minor children.
Disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE
cl
: 5 :
R.P.(F.C).No.349 OF 2007