IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 307 of 2009()
1. SUBRAMANYAN,AGED 35 YEARS,S/O.KRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. AYYOTTU RAJI,AGED 33 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. APARNA,AGED 4 1/2 YEARS,
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.K.A.SATHEESA BABU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :17/08/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
CRL. R.P(FC) No.307 of 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009
O R D E R
————–
This revision is in challenge of order passed by the Family Court,
Malappuram in M.C. No.568 of 2008 directing petitioner to pay
maintenance to respondent Nos.1 and 2 at the rate of Rs.2,000/- and
Rs.500/- per month, respectively. It is not disputed that petitioner
married respondent No.1 on 11.1.2004 and that respondent No.2 is
born in that wedlock. Alleging cruelty and harassment to respondent
No.1 respondents took up separate residence on 11.2.2006. They
also alleged that petitioner neglected and refused to maintain them.
In the meantime respondent No.1 filed O.P. No.478 of 2008 for divorce
and got a favourable order. Respondents alleged that petitioner is a
blacksmith by occupation, getting sufficient income and has landed
properties. Petitioner claimed that respondent No.1 is a teacher
earning at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month. Petitioner denied that he
has landed properties or income as stated by respondent No.1. Court
below recorded evidence of both sides and held that though
respondent No.1 is a B.A. B.Ed. degree holder she is unemployed and
is unable to maintain herself. Court below found that petitioner is a
blacksmith engaged in lathe work in a workshop and being a skilled
RP(FC) No.307 of 2009
-: 2 :-
worker can earn at the rate of Rs.400/- per day.
2. On merits of the case, since respondent No.1 has already
obtained divorce petitioner cannot contend that respondent No.1 is
residing separately without valid reason. Moreover it is not disputed
that parties are living separately from 11.2.2006. Petitioner never
took steps to get back respondents. Therefore respondent No.1 is
entitled to have separate residence and maintenance.
3. So far as respondent No.2 is concerned notwithstanding
the propriety of her custody with respondent No.1 she is entitled to
get maintenance as she is aged only 3= years.
4. What remained for consideration is whether the amount
awarded is excessive or beyond the reach of petitioner. It is not
disputed that petitioner is a blacksmith and he is able bodied. Court
below observed that he could earn not less than Rs.400/- per day. He
has not produced evidence showing his actual income. The sum of
Rs.2,000/- and Rs.500/- per month awarded to respondent Nos.1 and
2 aged 33 and 3= years, respectively on the date of application
cannot be said to be excessive considering their basic necessities and
cost of living. I am not inclined to think that the amount awarded is
beyond the reach of petitioner. There is no reason to interfere with
RP(FC) No.307 of 2009
-: 3 :-
the impugned order at the instance of petitioner. Revision petition is
without merit and it is liable to be dismissed.
Revision Petition fails. It is dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv