IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 42 of 2007()
1. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.LATE RAMAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KUMARI, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.RAMANKUTTY,
... Respondent
2. RESHEMA (MINOR, AGED 9 YEARS)
3. RAJESH (MINOR) AGED 7 YEARS,
4. RAHUL (MINOR) AGED 4 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN
For Respondent :SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :14/07/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.P(FC). NO.42 of 2007
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2009
O R D E R
————–
This revision is in challenge of the order granting maintenance in
favour of respondent Nos.1 to 4, wife and three children of petitioner.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he is only challenging the
quantum of maintenance awarded to respondent No.1 in this revision.
2. It is admitted that petitioner is the husband of respondent
No.1 and father of respondent Nos.2 to 4. Respondents alleged that
petitioner subjected respondent No.1 to mental and physical cruelty
and harassment and neglected and refused to maintain respondents.
Petitioner in turn alleged unchastity to respondent No.1. He claimed
that respondent No.1 is having 25 cents of land and produced Ext.D1
to prove the same. Exhibit D2 is the copy of the settlement of
account between himself and respondent No.1 produced to show that
he had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- in the account of respondent No.1 on
4.1.2001. Exhibit D2 revealed that there was such a deposit on
4.1.2001 but there was no evidence to show that the deposit was
made by the petitioner. That amount was withdrawn by respondent
No.1 as per two cheques. Court below found that respondents are
R.P(FC) No.42 of 2007
-: 2 :-
entitled to get maintenance from petitioner. What remained for
consideration is only whether the amount awarded to respondent No.1
is excessive or beyond the capacity of petitioner.
3. To respondent No.1, wife aged 30 years Rs.500/- is
awarded. I am not inclined to think that the amount awarded is
excessive. So far as capacity of petitioner to pay maintenance is
concerned, respondents were not able to prove that he has landed
property as stated by them. Petitioner claimed that he is a coolie
earning at the rate of Rs.60/- per day. When examined as C.PW.1 he
stated that his daily income is Rs.100/-. Assuming that he is a coolie
by occupation, considering the labour charges prevailing in this part of
the State, I am not inclined to think that the amount awarded is
beyond his capacity. An able bodied man must be presumed to be
capable of earning. Petitioner has that capacity. I do not find reason
to interfere with the impugned order at the instane of petitioner.
Revision is without merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Revision Petition is dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv