The Kerala High Court dismissed a family court revision petition challenging an order fixing monthly maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, holding the quantum reasonable and the lower court's findings supported by evidence.
The revision petition was dismissed; the impugned order of the Family Court was 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 C.T.RAVIKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/22ND SRAVANA 1934
RPFC.No. 175 of 2012 (E)
IN MC.NO. 133/2011 of FAMILY COURT, VATAKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
ANEESH N., AGED 38 YEARS S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, UNNILILAYAM, NADAMMAL OPPOSITE RAILWAY STATION, VATAKARA TALUK
BY ADV. SRI.MOHANAN V.T.K.
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
1. VINEETHA T.V.K., AGED 26 YEARS D/O.K.T.K.VIJAYAN, 'KANNAN NIVAS PERUVAYAL NILAM HOUSE, P.O.MUTTUNGAL, KAINATTY VATAKRA TALUK, PIN – 673 121
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
===========================
R.P. (F.C.)NO. 175 OF 2012
===========================
Dated this the 13th day of August 2012
ORDER
This revision petition is directed against the order dated
26-3-2012 in M.C. No. 133 of 2011 of the Family Court, Vatakara. The said M.C. was filed by the respondent herein under Section 125 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming monthly maintenance from the revision petitioner. The marriage between the revision petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 11-01-2010. The respondent thereupon filed the above case contending that she is not having any means to maintain herself and the petitioner who is having the capacity and liability to maintain her has been wilfully neglecting to maintain her. The revision petitioner herein is working as a film operator in Keerthi Mudra Theatre at Vatakara. The respondent herein was examined as PW1 and the revision petitioner herein was examined as RW1 before the Family Court. On the side of the respondent herein Ext. A1 was marked and Exts. B1 to B 36 were produced on the side of the respondent therein viz; the revision petitioner. After careful examination of the entire evidence on record,
R.P. (F.C.)NO. 175 OF 2012
#2#
both oral and documentary, the Family Court arrived at a conclusion
that there is justifiable reason for the respondent herein to live separately from the revision petitioner and that she is not having any source of income to maintain herself. It was also found that the revision petitioner herein is liable to maintain the respondent and that he is having the capacity to maintain her. Though it was contended by the revision petitioner herein, that the respondent herein is a tailor that and she is having sufficient income to maintain herself no cogent evidence was adduced to prove such specific contentions.
and factors that the Family Court arrived at such conclusions that the respondent herein got no means to maintain herself and that the revision petitioner herein is liable to maintain the respondent and is having the capacity to maintain her. I do not find any reason for interfere with such a finding entered into by the Family Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction as no case has been made out by the revision petitioner to show that such conclusions were arrived at based on
R.P. (F.C.)NO. 175 OF 2012
#3#
palpable, perverse appreciation of evidence. As regards the question of the quantum fixed by the Family Court as monthly maintenance obviously, it cannot be said that it is exhorbitant. Rs. 1500/- fixed as monthly maintenance is only a reasonable amount. The impugned order therefore, warrants no interference by this court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. In the said circumstances, this revision petition is liable to fail and accordingly it is dismissed.
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court's finding that the respondent has no means to maintain herself was based on palpable or perverse appreciation of evidence.
Whether the monthly maintenance quantum of Rs. 1500/- fixed by the Family Court is exorbitant and warrants interference.
Whether the revision petition against the Family Court's order under Section 125 CrPC is maintainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ANEEESH N.
VINEETHA T.V.K.
C.T. RAVIKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
