High Court Kerala High Court

T.Muhammedali Shihab vs Sabeena P. on 9 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
T.Muhammedali Shihab vs Sabeena P. on 9 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RPFC.No. 448 of 2007()


1. T.MUHAMMEDALI SHIHAB,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SABEENA P., D/O.ASSAINAR, A.P.K.,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SANABAS, AGED 2 YEARS, (MINOR)

3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :09/03/2010

 O R D E R
                      M.N.KRISHNAN,J.
            ======================
                 R.P.(FC).No.448 OF 2007
            ======================
         Dated this the 9th day of March 2010.

                           O R D E R

This revision is preferred against the order of

maintenance passed by Family Court Kasaragod in

M.C.No.132/2006. The wife and son moved an application

for maintenance against the revision petitioner and has been

directed to pay Rs.2,500/- as maintenance to the wife and

Rs.500/- to the child. It is against that decision the husband

has come up in revision. So far as it relates to separate

living is concerned the husband was very uncharitable to

the wife and is making allegations of unchastity. Throwing

the allegation of unchastity of wife without proof itself

amounts to cruelty and gives a ground for the wife to live

separately from the husband. Therefore I do not propose to

interfere with the said finding of the Family Court regarding

reasons for separate living.

R.P.(FC).No.448 OF 2007 2

2. Now to the quantum. Really there is no clear

evidence to fix the quantum. The husband had produced

one document Ext.D1 which is a basic tax receipt in the

name of wife. The Family Court simply does not believe it.

There was duty cast upon the wife to explain the same and

show that she is not having any property at all and that

the document cannot be accepted. Equally is the husband

who admittedly is a person dealing with books. The wife

would contend that he is working in a managerial cadre

with Avanthi Books, whereas the husband would deny the

same. He is dealing with books is admitted. Even otherwise

a 25 year old man who is healthy, morally and legally is

bound to maintain his wife and son. He cannot escape from

that liability. It is also to be remembered that when

quantum is fixed the capacity of the husband to pay also has

to be considered to strike a balance between necessity and

capacity. So considering the materials available, the age of

the person and other circumstance, I feel, it is just and

sufficient if maintenance is ordered at the rate of Rs.1,500/-

R.P.(FC).No.448 OF 2007 3

to wife and Rs.500/- to child, both payable from the date of

petition, namely, 17.7.06. If any amount is paid or credited

that shall be given credit and balance need be paid.

The R.P.F.C is disposed of accordingly.

M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE.

mns