Revising a Family Court order awarding maintenance, the High Court rejected the husband's claim of low income as unsupported by evidence, upholding the wife's right to maintenance due to justified separation.
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 BASANT BALAJI
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022/24TH JYAISHTA, 1944
R.P.(F.C.) NO.21 OF 2018
(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2017 IN MC 139/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE)
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
NOUFAL K.P., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.LATE. ALIKKOYA, PANARKANDI HOUSE, FEROKE COLLEGE PO, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SRI.P.V.ANOOP SMT.NEETHU C.V
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 RUFSANA THESNIM .C, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.RASAK C, CHEMBAN HOUSE, THIRUMANGALATH, MELEPARAMBU MATHARA P.O., GURUVAYOORAPPAN COLLEGE, OLAVANNA DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 019 2 NIMRA (MINOR), AGED 3 YEARS, D/O.RUFSANA THESNIM .C, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER RUFSANA THESNIM C, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.RASAK .C, CHEMBAN HOUSE,THIRUMANGALATH, MELEPARAMBU MATHARA PO, GURUVAYOORAPPAN COLLEGE, OLAVANNA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 019.
BY ADV SRI.N.V.P.RAFEEQUE
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.(F.C.)No.21 of 2018
2
ORDER
This revision petition is filed by the
petitioner who is the respondent in M.C.No.139 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court, Kozhikode and the respondents are the petitioners (the parties are referred to as they are appeared in the lower court).
R.P.(F.C.)No.21 of 2018
3
forced to report the matter before the Feroke police. Since she was not able to live along with the husband in the matrimonial home, she was forced to leave. The respondent/husband is bound to maintain the petitioners and the 1st petitioner requires a some of Rs.8,000/- and the 2nd petitioner requires Rs.5,000/- towards the monthly maintenance allowance. The respondent is a business man owning
a shop at Feroke dealing with mobile phones and earning an income of Rs.2,00,000/- per month. The petitioners are depending upon the mother of the 1st petitioner.
R.P.(F.C.)No.21 of 2018
4
registered. According to the respondent, the petitioner is staying in her house without any justifiable reasons, therefore she is not entitled to claim maintenance. The amount claimed is exorbitant and he denied owning a mobile shop at Feroke. The 1st petitioner is seamstress by profession and earning income. The respondent's mother is aged 65 and she is suffering with paralysis and kidney disease. He admitted that he was painter in a private company and due to a fracture sustained to his leg, he could not continue the same work and now working as a salesman in City Metals Home and Appliances, Vatakara and earning Rs.350/- per day.
the finding that the petitioners are entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively from the date of petition.
R.P.(F.C.)No.21 of 2018
5
Challenging the above said finding, this revision is filed by the respondent.
due to the fracture sustained to his leg is not able to continue his work. The petitioner has to look after his mother, who is suffering from paralysis and kidney disease and hence, with the meagre income he gets, finds it very difficult to pull on.
R.P.(F.C.)No.21 of 2018
6
during the said period will have at least an income of Rs.600/- per day. Taking the income as Rs.600/per day, fixed the maintenance at Rs.3,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.2,000/- to the 2nd petitioner. Though the petitioner/husband raised a contention that he has getting only Rs.350/- per day; the income that a daily wage employee would earn is not less than Rs.600/- per day is found by the Family Court. I do not think that entering into such a finding is improper. In that case, the Family Court was justified in granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively to the petitioners. The revision petitioner has not produced any document to show that the mother is depending on him and he is spending money for the treatment of his mother. A wife who is living separately for justifiable reason, is definitely entitle to claim maintenance. The Family Court has found that the wife is living separately for
R.P.(F.C.)No.21 of 2018
7
justifiable reasons. It has also come on evidence that a criminal complaint was filed against the respondent as she was assaulted on 26.12.2015. This probabilises the fact that she is residing separately due to the ill-treatment. In view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the order of the Family Court is perfectly in order and needs no interference. There is no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Family Court.
In the result, the revision petition is
dismissed.
ss
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court's finding regarding the daily wage earner's minimum income was improper and required interference.
Whether the wife was entitled to maintenance despite living separately due to ill-treatment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Noufal K.P.
Rufsana Thesnim .C
Nimra
Basant Balaji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
