IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 370 of 2007()
1. P.ABDULLA, S/O. PAREDANMUHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SAHIRA, D/O. ABBAS, W/O. ABDULLA,
... Respondent
2. SHAS, AGED 12 YEARS (MINOR),
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.SHAJI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :10/03/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.P.(F.C.) NO. 370 OF 2007
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010.
O R D E R
This revision is preferred against the order of the Family
Court, Malappuram in M.C.675/06. The wife and two children
moved an application for maintenance and the Family Court
ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,200/- to the wife and
Rs.800/- to the first child and Rs.500/- to the 2nd child. It is
against that decision the husband has come up in revision.
2. Heard. Admittedly the husband is a person who
has married twice and both the matrimonial relationships are
in subsistence. It is the legal and moral responsibility of a
husband to maintain both wives properly. Therefore the
question that may have to be considered is regarding the
quantum.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
strongly contends before me that after his return from the gulf
country he has not been keeping good health and has
produced documents from Malabar Institute of Medical
R.P.(F.C.) NO. 370 OF 2007
-:2:-
Sciences and also documents to prove his Tuberculosis. The
Court below found that though these documents are pressed
into service it is not proved and therefore the Court below
negatived the contention that he is incapable of earning. A
perusal of the order would reveal that he was a man in the
gulf country for very long years. He is having a house of his
own and it is also extracted in paragraph 11 that on
production of the Bank extracts of his N.R.I. Account he
admitted that recently he had a balance of Rs.2 lakhs in that
account. The Court below also found that the husband was
residing in Madras doing business. When he is a person who
had married twice, without resources he would not have
ventured and therefore he is a person who is capable to
making some income. When in this back ground the
maintenance awarded is considered it can be seen that the
wife is only granted a maintenance of Rs.1,200/- and the
children together Rs.1,300/-. It cannot be held that the said
amount is arbitrary or excess specially the Court has to take
into consideration the present day escalation of price and the
R.P.(F.C.) NO. 370 OF 2007
-:3:-
cost of living and in that back drop I cannot hold that the
quantum requires interference. Therefore the revision lacks
merit and the same is dismissed.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-