IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 273 of 2009()
1. SUDHEER, AGED 35 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VALSALA, AGED 29 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :29/07/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
R.P.(FC) No.273 of 2009
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009.
ORDER
This revision is in challenge of the order passed by the Family Court,
Palakkad in M.C.No.536 0f 2006 directing petitioner to pay maintenance to the
respondent aged 29 years (at the time of filing the application for maintenance)
at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month. Petitioner married respondent on
30.8.2003. She alleged ill-treatment, cruelty, neglect and refusal to maintain on
the part of petitioner. She has a case that she was even locked up in the room
and her relative had to come for her rescue. According to the respondent,
petitioner has illicit connection with his aunt. She stated that petitioner is a
famous astrologer earning Rs.500/- per day and has landed properties.
Petitioner denied the allegations against him and claimed that respondent is a
cruel wife who spoiled his life. He claimed that on account of the ill-reputation
brought to him, he has lost his clients in astrology and is now working as a
watchman earning Rs.2,100/- per month. Both sides adduced evidence in
support of their contention. It came out in evidence that alleging cruelty
petitioner had filed a petition for divorce but after taking evidence that petition
was dismissed. That order became final. On the other side complaint preferred
by the respondent for offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code resulted in acquittal of petitioner. Regarding that acquittal learned
Judge has pointed out that appreciation of evidence in a criminal proceeding is
RP(FC) No.273/2009
2
entirely different from that in a civil proceeding. Learned Judge observed that
since petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty on the part of respondent
ended in dismissal petitioner cannot any more contend that respondent was
cruel. Learned Judge has considered the evidence and has come to the finding
that petitioner was cruel to the respondent and that made her eligible for
separate residence and maintenance. I do not find reason to differ from that
finding.
2. Petitioner has raised a contention that he is working as watchman
and earning only Rs.2,100/- per month. He stated so as RW1 and produced
Ext.D4, certificate said to be issued by the manager of the concern where he is
allegedly working. RW2 is one of the signatories in Ext.D4 and supported the
petitioner. But it came out that except Ext.D4 there is no scrap of paper to
show that petitioner is working as watchman. Ofcouse RW2 has an
explanation for that – it is because petitioner is not a permanent employee.
According to RW2, the duty time of petitioner is from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. but
petitioner says that he does not know whether there is a night watchman for the
concern. Learned Judge observed that if petitioner was actually a watchman of
the concern, he would not have been unaware of that fact. In these
circumstances, learned Judge was not inclined to accept the evidence of
petitioner (RW1) and RW2 and Ext.D4. Conclusion of the court below require
no interference.
3. Even according to the petitioner he is an astrologer his case being
RP(FC) No.273/2009
3
that he lost clients on account of ill-reputation brought by respondent. In other
words, his efficiency as an astrologer is not under challenge . He is otherwise
capable of earning . Therefore the sum of Rs.1,500/- per month awarded to
respondent as maintenance cannot be taken as something beyond his reach.
4. Petitioner has a case that respondent is earning as an astrologer
and examined RW3 in proof of that. But apart from vehemently suggesting that
respondent is earning as astrologer, RW3 was not able to give the details. That
defence was also not acted upon by the court below for cogent reasons. Yet
another contention of the petitioner is that respondent owned landed properties
and produced Ext.D2, information petitioner had collected from the Village
Officer concerned under the provisions of the Right to information Act. Ext.D2
shows that respondent’s father has 1.10 acres of land. That is not a property
owned by the petitioner. At any rate she has no absolute right or possession of
it . There is no evidence on record to show that respondent is capable of
maintaining herself. On going through the order under challenge and hearing
learned counsel I find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order under
challenge.
Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks