This is a revision brought by the respondent in M.C No.678 of 2008 of the Family Court, Malappuram wherein maintenance has been ordered to the revision petitioner's wife and minor child under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The first respondent was married by the revision petitioner on 25.07.2004, but within a short period disputes and differences cropped up in matrimony. This even lead to a prosecution under Section 498 A IPC. Pending the disputes and proceedings the revision petitioner herein contracted a second marriage. The respondents brought claim for maintenance on the allegations of cruelty and desertion, before the trial court. 2. The revision petitioner entered appearance in the trial court and resisted the claim of his wife and child on the contention that his wife has her own income to live on, and he is not in a position to pay as claimed by his wife.
3. The trial court conducted an enquiry in the proceedings and recorded evidence. The first respondent examined herself as PW1 and the revision petitioner examined as many as five witnesses on his side. As he was abroad abroad at that time, the revision petitioner could not adduce any evidence of his own. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found that the first respondent has her own reasons and justifications to live separately and claim maintenance. Accordingly the trial court passed the impugned order dated 06.02.2009 directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs.3,000 per month and to the minor daughter at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month.
4. When this revision petition came up for hearing there was nobody to make arguments on behalf of the revision petitioner. On the previous postings also there was no representation, and this revision was accordingly posted to this date as a final chance for hearing. Despite such a final chance containing a warning the revision petitioner or his counsel did not turn up to make arguments in this revision.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the respondent and on a perusal of the case records I find no scope for interference in the impugned order on the ground of any irregularity or illegality. The revision petitioner has admitted the second marriage contracted by him during the subsistence of his marital tie with the first respondent.
In such a factual situation the husband cannot be heard to make an offer to take back his wife and maintain her. The first respondent examined as PW1 as given evidence substantiating her allegations of cruelty and desertion. The revision petitioner has no case that he had made payment of anything to his wife and child on any occasion since the separation. I find that the first respondent has a genuine grievance against the revision petitioner, and that she has her own justification and excuse to live separately from her husband.
6. The revision petitioner did not turn up to adduce any evidence of his own. In such a factual situation no value can be attached to the evidence given by the witnesses examined on his side. All these witnesses were in fact examined by him to prove that he has divorced the first respondent. But the trial court did not accept this evidence, and found that such a case stands not proved. The first respondent is definite that she continues to be the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner, and that she is not aware of divorce or pronouncement of Talaq as claimed by the husband. It is for the husband himself to come and say that he has divorced his wife. But he did not find it convenient to come to court and adduce any evidence of his own substantiating his case. Anyway he has admitted the second marriage, and he has so no evidence to prove that the first respondent has her own source of income. I find that the first respondent has well proved her claim under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as a neglected and deserted wife without any job or means. I also find that she is well justified in living separately from her husband, when he has another wife with him.
7. Now coming to the amount ordered by the trial court, I find that the amount is quite reasonable and it does not require any interference in revision. We can just think of the needs and necessities, and also the requirements of a young wife with a small daughter. It is a practical reality that cost of living has always been on the increase. I find that the amount fixed by the trial court as maintenance is quite reasonable. It should be noted that the revision petitioner is admittedly employed abroad, and he cannot be heard to contend that he cannot pay at the rate ordered by the trial court.
As found above, this revision is liable to dismissed as merit less.
In the result, this revision petition is dismissed as merit less.
P.UBAID, JUDGE sab