Counter petitioner in MC.No.416/2012 on the file of Family Court, Thrissur, is the revision petitioner herein. 2. The application was filed by the respondents herein claiming maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that the revision petitioner married the first respondent on 10.05.1998, respondents 2 and 3 were born in that wedlock. He is running wholesale fish business in Kunnamkulam market and also having vehicle business and getting `.60,000/- from his business and `.1,00,000/- from the vehicle business and also having properties and getting `.15,000/- from his properties as well. The first respondent has no means to maintain herself and she requires `.10,000/- for her and `.7500/- for her children. So she filed the application.
3. The revision petitioner appeared and filed counter contending that the minor petitioners are now residing with him as per the orders of the court and first petitioner is having only visitation right. So, he has no liability to pay maintenance to the children. He is only an autorickshaw driver and getting only `.8000/- per month and he is maintaining his aged parents and minor children. He is ready to pay maintenance @ `.1000/- to the first petitioner. She is having some illicit connection with another person. So he is not prepared to live with her. The allegations that he is having business and getting more income etc alleged are not correct and he also denied the allegations that he is getting good income from fish business, vehicle transaction and from the properties. So, he prayed for dismissal of the application.
4. Petitioner was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 was marked on her side. The counter petitioner was examined as RW1 and Ext.B1 series, B2 to B6 were marked on his side. After considering the evidence on record, the court below found that the first respondent herein is entitled to get maintenance and fixed the quantum of maintenance @ `.5000/- per month and the court below denied maintenance to the children as they are living with the revision petitioner. Challenging the quantum of maintenance the revision petitioner filed this revision before this court.
5. Since, first respondent had appeared, this court felt that the revision can be admitted and can be disposed of on merit after hearing both sides today itself. So, the revision is admitted and heard both sides and disposed of today itself on merit.
6. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he is only an autorickshaw driver and getting a meagre income and the amount of `.5000/- fixed by the court below is excessive. Further he is maintaining the children and the first petitioner has deserted the house and she is not entitled to get maintenance.
7. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the amount awarded is reasonable and she is prepared to take back the minor children and look after them.
8. It is an admitted fact that revision petitioner married the first respondent herein and respondents 2 and 3 were born to them in the wedlock. It is also an admitted fact the now they are residing separately. It is also in away admitted that as per the orders of the court all the three children are with the revision petitioner now and visitation right has been given to the first respondent and since the children are being maintained by the revision petitioner, the court below had found that the revision petitioner is not liable to pay any separate maintenance to the children.
9. As regards the maintenance payable to the first respondent is concerned, the revision petitioner has no intention to take her back. Further, the allegations was that she is having some illicit connection with another person which has not been established. So, making allegations against a woman, challenging her chastity will amount to cruelty which is a reasonable ground for her to stay away from her husband. So, under the circumstances, the court below was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that first respondent herein is entitled to get maintenance from her husband.
10. As regards the income is concerned, though the first respondent had a case that he is having fish business and vehicle business and also income from the property, no evidence has been adduced to prove that fact. She had produced Ext.P1 to show that he is the owner of one autorickshaw with No.KL-46C-1328. Merely because, some vehicles were seen parked in the common house, it cannot be said that he is the owner of those vehicles or he is conducting vehicle business as claimed by the revision petitioner. So, under the circumstances, the court below came to the conclusion that the first respondent has failed to prove the income of the respondent as claimed by her. But that will not a ground for denying maintenance as the revision petitioner has no case that is incapable of working and getting income to provide maintenance to the wife. However, considering the fact that he is an autorickshaw driver and he is maintaining the minor children The amount of `.5000/- fixed by the court below is on the higher side. But, considering a cost of living it cannot be reduced be a lower extent as well. Court will have a practical view while fixing the quantum of maintenance which must be reasonable to meet the requirements of the wife as well. So, considering the circumstances, this court feels that the maintenance can be re-fixed `.4000/- which the revision petitioner is liable to pay from the date of petition. So, the amount is modified to Rs.4000/- per month.
With the above modification of the maintenance amount, the revision is allowed in part. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/- K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE R.AV //True copy// PA to Judge