Revision court dismissed a challenge to a maintenance order under CPC 125, holding that the lower court's finding of loft lack of seriousness was supported by evidence and the award was within the petitioner's means.
Application for revision dismissed, order dated 21/10/2009 upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931
RPFC.No. 378 of 2009()
-----------------------------------MC.265/2008 OF FAMILY COURT,THIRUVALLA.
REVN.PETITIONER/CR.PETITIONER
-------------------------------------------------
RAJEEV V.R, VILAYIL HOUSE,KUMPLATHAMON P.O., VADASEERIKKARA,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
SRI.R.REJI SRI.B.BIPIN
RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS
-------------------------------------------
1. SUNITHAKUMARI,
2. KANNAN,AGED 1 YEAR(MINOR),KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,KUDAPPANAKULAM,NEELIPILAVU P.O.,CHITTAR. REP.BY THE IST RESPONDENT MOTHER SUNITHAKUMARI, AGED 21 YEARS,KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,KUDAPPANAKULAM, NEELIPILAVU P.O.,CHITTAR.
BY ADV. SUNITHAKUMARI
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PKK
R.P(FC) NO. 378 OF 2009
P.S. GOPINATHAN, J.
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2009
ORDER
Revision petitioner is the counter petitioner in M.C No. 265 of
2008 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla. The respondents 1 and 2 herein, who are the wife and son of the revision petitioner, preferred the above petition before the lower court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with allegation that the revision petitioner neglected the respondents and was not providing anything for their maintenance and they are unable to maintain themself and demanding a sum of Rs. 1,500/- and Rs. 1,000/- per month respectively to the respondents for their maintenance. It was also pleaded that revision petitioner is a goldsmith engaged in a jewellery in Coimbatore and had been earning Rs. 15,000/- per month.
had been getting a meagre income of Rs. 1,500/- and with that
R.P(FC) NO. 378 OF 2009
2
amount he has to maintain his mother and depending sister and he
was prepared to take back the respondents and to maintain and also to pay Rs. 500/- for the maintenance of the child .
petitioner was examined as CPW1 and Ext.B1 salary certificate was marked on his side. The lower court on appraisal of the evidence arrived a conclusion that respondents were living separate for sufficient reasons and that the respondents are devoid of any independent means for their maintenance. Having taken into account of the entire circumstances, the lower court arrived a finding that income of the revision petitioner would be more than Rs.300/- per day. Consequently the petition was allowed and revision petitioner was directed to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs. 800/- to the 2nd respondent.
3
R.P(FC) NO. 378 OF 2009
R.P(FC) NO. 378 OF 2009
4
awarded by the lower court is not at all exorbitant. Revision petitioner is admittedly a goldsmith. The contention that he is getting only a meagre amount of Rs.1,500/- per month is not at all believable. Now a days even the wages of coolies are very high. It did not appear that the income of the revision petitioner estimated by the lower court is very high or exaggerated. In the event the work of a goldsmith is not remunerative he can go for casual work and easily find out Rs. 1800/- to the respondents together. The amount awarded is not at all beyond the means of the revision petitioner. I find no merit in the revision petition. Accordingly it is dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted two months time for payment of arrears provided he continued to pay the monthly maintenance without any default.
P.S. GOPINATHAN
JUDGE
PKK
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court correctly awarded maintenance considering the petitioner's income and the validity of his rebuttal claim.
Whether the maintenance award imposed by the trial court is exorbitant or beyond the means of the petitioner.
Whether the revision petitioner is entitled to a liberal discretion to apply for maintenance alteration upon restitution.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajeev V.R
Sunithakumari
Kannan
P.S.Gopinathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
