IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP(Family Court) No. 176 of 2006()
1. SHAHANAZ, AGED 29,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SABEERA, AGED 22, D/O. MOIDEEN,
... Respondent
2. SAFANA, AGED 3, D/O. SHAHANAZ,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :29/08/2006
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.P.(F.C).No. 176 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2006
O R D E R
This revision petition is directed against an order passed by
the Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. directing the petitioner to
pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. from the date of the
petition to the first claimant/wife and at the rate of Rs.750/- p.m.
from the date of the order to the second claimant, his child.
2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is admitted. Separate
residence of the spouses is also admitted. The claimant/wife
contended that she is entitled to reside separately and claim
maintenance because of the cruelty inflicted on her. Before the court
below there was only the evidence of the claimant/wife as PW1 and a
witness as PW2, to whom the petitioner had allegedly sold an item of
property under Ext.A1. The petitioner herein examined himself as
RW1. In addition to Ext.A1 Sale Deed, Ext.A2, copy of an F.I.R.
registered by the police, wherein allegations of matrimonial cruelty
R.P.(F.C).No. 176 of 2006 2
are raised against the petitioner herein, was also marked.
3. Called upon to choose between the rival assertions on oath, the
learned Judge of the Family Court chose the evidence of PW1 in preference
to that of RW1. The court took the view that the claimants are entitled for
separate maintenance. Regarding the quantum, though the assertion of the
claimant/PW1 that the petitioner is engaged in a business, was not proved
to the hilt, the court took into consideration the circumstance that as an
able bodied person he must be willing to work and earn his livelihood and
maintain his dependent wife and child. It is accordingly that maintenance
amount was fixed at a modest rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. and Rs.750/- p.m. for
the claimants, wife and child.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order.
The counsel attempts to raise a contention that there has been a divorce and
the claimant has staked a claim for amounts under Section 3 of the Muslim
Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. It was evident that this was
a ploy pressed into service by the petitioner and therefore the petitioner
was directed to specify whether the marital tie has been put an end to or
R.P.(F.C).No. 176 of 2006 3
not.
5. Today when the matter came up for admission hearing, the
learned counsel fairly submits that the petitioner’s case is that no
divorce
has taken place. In these circumstances the contention attempted to be
built on the alleged divorce cannot stand.
6. The only serious contention now raised is about the quantum of
maintenance. The amount awarded is only Rs.1,000/- p.m. and Rs.750/-
p.m. There is no contention that any amount has been paid during the
pendency of the proceedings. In these circumstances I consider the
quantum directed to be paid as maintenance as also direction regarding the
date on which the order shall take effect to be eminently satisfactory. At
any rate, no interference by invocation of the revisional jurisdiction is
warranted at all.
7. This revision petition is hence dismissed.
(R. BASANT)
R.P.(F.C).No. 176 of 2006 4
Judge
tm