High Court of Kerala dismissed a revision petition challenging a Family Court's order fixing monthly maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Court upheld the Family Court's findings that the husband neglected to maintain his wife and minor child despite his ability to do so.
Revision petition dismissed; Family Court order upholding monthly maintenance.
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 C.T.RAVIKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2012/11TH ASHADHA 1934
RPFC.No. 138 of 2012 () ----------------------MC.98/2011 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD
REVISION PETITIONER(S):RESPONDENT
HASSAINAR K.P S/O.LATE IBRAHIM, RESIDING AT THARIGUDDE CHIKKAMUNNUR GRAMA,KEMMAI POST, PUTTUR TALUK D.H.DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SRI.HANSON.P.MATHEW
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS:
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-07-12, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
==========================
R.P(FC). No.138 OF 2012
==========================
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2012
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed against the order in M.C.No.98 of 2011 on the file of the Family Court, Kasaragode. That petition was filed by the first respondent herein under section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking monthly maintenance for herself and the minor child born in her wedlock with the petitioner. Her contention was that the revision petitioner-respondent is a drunkard and used to demand dowry. She came to know that he had contracted another marriage. It is also contended that she is not able to maintain herself and the child and that the revision petitioner who is capable to maintaining her and the child born in their wedlock, is neglecting to maintain them. The revision petitioner admitted that the first respondent is his legally wedded wife and there is no dispute with
R.P.(F.C).138/12
2
respect to the paternity of the child. According to him, after the birth of the second respondent/second petitioner, the first respondent started compelling the revision petitioner to shift the residence. Apart from that, it is contended by the revision petitioner that the first respondent is getting Rs.4,000/- from her tailoring work. No evidence whatsoever was adduced by him to support the said contention. The first respondent herein got examined as PW1 and the revision petitioner was examined as RW1. After carefully considering the rival contentions and on proper evaluation of the evidence, the Family Court found that the respondents herein are not in a position to maintain themselves and at the same time, the revision petitioner being an able bodied and minded person, is capable of maintaining them and he has been neglecting to maintain them. Though the petitioner has set up a defence that the first respondent herein is getting monthly income of about Rs.4,000/- from her tailoring work, he has not adduced evidence to prove that. There is no case for the revision petitioner that he is not an able bodied person. The second
R.P.(F.C).138/12
3
petitioner herein is studying in the VI standard. It is after consideration of all such relevant aspects that the Family Court fixed the monthly maintenance @ Rs.1500/- per month to the first respondent and @ Rs.750/- to the second respondent. Fixation of the said monthly maintenance cannot be said to be arbitrary or excessive. In the circumstances, I do not find any compelling reason for interference by exercising the revisional jurisdiction. This revision petition is, therefore, liable to fail. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge)
spc/
R.P.(F.C).138/12
4
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT
September, 2010
R.P.(F.C).138/12 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court's order fixing monthly maintenance is arbitrary or excessive warranting interference in revision.
Whether the revision petitioner was neglecting to maintain his legally wedded wife and minor child.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Hassainar K.P
E. Zubaida
C.T. Ravikumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
