IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP(Family Court) No. 129 of 2003()
1. PATTARUMADATHIL HANEEFA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KADEEJA, AGED 24 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. ARSHAD, MINOR 8 YEARS,
3. HASEENA, MINOR 5 YEARS,
4. MUHAMMED NASEEBA, MINOR 4 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
For Respondent :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :23/10/2007
O R D E R
K.R.UDAYABHANU, J
---------------------------------------------
R.P.(C).No.129 of 2003
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2007
O R D E R
The revision petitioner is the respondent/husband in
M.C.No.156/02 the proceedings initiated by the first petitioner/
wife under Section 125 Crl.P.C.
2. The court below ordered the respondent/revision
petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- per month
to the first petitioner wife and at the rate of Rs.350/- per month
to the petitioners 2 to 4.
3. The case of the petitioner is that after marriage in
November 1993 they were living together and subsequently the
respondent misappropriated gold ornaments belonging to her
and when she demanded the same back he started to ill treat her
and on the particular day she severely ill treated her and sent
her to her house along with petitioners 2 and 3, the minor
children. At the time she was carrying 4th petitioner. According
to her, the respondent did not pay any maintenance to the
petitioners. It is submitted that the respondent is a stone cutter
RPFC129/2003 2
by profession and he earns Rs.7,500/- per month and also gets
Rs.7,000/- from his properties. She had claimed maintenance at
the rate of Rs.500/- per month. On the other hand, the
respondent had contended that she had dissolved the marriage
on 24.4.2001 in the presence of witnesses. According to him, at
present he is not engaged in the profession of stone cutting and
he is working as a domestic aid and his monthly earnings is only
Rs.900/- and with this amount he has to protect his present wife,
two children, aged father and sister. It is also alleged that the
first petitioner is financially well of.
4. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted of the
testimony of PW1, the petitioner, RWs’ 1 to 3 who are the
respondent and two witnesses.
5. The trial court has found that the evidence of RWs’ 2
and 3 are not reliable as their version contained contradictions.
Moreover, nothing more than oral version of RWs’ 1 to 3 is
before the court below to prove the case of the pronouncement
of the thalak which is denied by the petitioner. In the absence of
any objective evidence produced in this regard, I find that on the
RPFC129/2003 3
above point decided by the court below no interference is called
for.
5. I find that the amount ordered to be paid as monthly
maintenance is only at the rate of Rs.400/- to the first petitioner
and Rs.350/- to the three minor children.
6. I find that the amount ordered is quite reasonable if
not on the lower side. No interference is called for.
The revision petition is dismissed.
K.R.UDAYABHANU,
JUDGE
csl