The petitioners in M.C.No.2013/2011 on the file of the Family Court, Chavara are the revision petitioners herein. They filed the application for maintenance under section 125 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code). 2. The petitioners case was that the respondent married the first petitioner on 05.02.1999 as per custom and thereafter they were living together as husband and wife in which the second petitioner was born on 04.11.2000. At the time of marriage, 104 sovereigns of gold ornaments and valuable presentation items were given. The respondent and the family members misappropriated at the same except the daily wearing the gold ornaments. During the initial stage of marriage, there was no difficulty for her to live in the house and thereafter, on account of ill-treatment, it has become impossible for her to live in the house. So, she had to leave the matrimonial home and now she residing with her parents. He is employed in Indian Rare Earth(IRE) Chavara and getting reasonable income. Further, he is also having landed property and getting good income from the properties as well. The amounts deposited in her name by her father were also withdrawn and misappropriated by the respondent. Suits are pending for recovery of the amount and the gold ornaments. The respondent is working and getting monthly income of `.5500/- and also getting `.10,000/- from his properties. The first petitioner is not having any income of her own and she need `.3000/- per month for her maintenance and `.1000/- for the minor child. Thereafter, they filed an application for amendment enhancing the claim for maintenance of `.7500/- to the first petitioner and `.5000/- to the second petitioner and that was allowed.
3. Respondent filed counter admitting the marriage and paternity of the child. But, according to the respondent, they were living together and leading a happy married life. While so, the father of the first petitioner used to compel them to come and live in their house for which he was not amenable. The allegation that he misappropriated the gold ornaments etc are not correct. The respondent has no job now. He was only having a temporary job and he was only getting `.3588/- and he is not capable of doing heavy work on account of his illness. He is prepared to pay `.200/- per month to the second petitioner and the first petitioner is not entitled to get any maintenance. So, he wanted to pass orders accordingly.
4. First petitioner was examined as PW1 and respondent was examined as RW1 and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the petitioners and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the respondent. After considering the evidence on record, the court below found that the first petitioner is not entitled to get maintenance has she is employed and getting income but awarded an amount of `.2000/- to the child alone which is being challenged by the revision petitioner by filing this revision. Since, the respondent has appeared, this court felt that the revision petition can be admitted and heard and disposed of on merit today itself after hearing both sides. So revision is admitted and heard both sides and disposed of today itself on merit.
5. The counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the the findings of the court below that the first petitioner did not require maintenance as she is having employment is not correct. Further, the amount is not sufficient to maintain herself considering the living condition. Further, the amount awarded to the child is also less as she is studying in 9th standard and the court below was not justified in not awarding any amount to the first petitioner and the amount awarded to the second petitioner is also less.
6. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no evidence to show that the respondent is having better income than the first petitioner and he is having only a temporary employment and also suffering from some illness. So the court below has correctly appreciated the evidence and no illegality has been committed by the court below and the order does not call for any interference.
7. It is an admitted fact that respondent herein married the first petitioner and the second petitioner was born to them in the wedlock. It is also seen from the evidence that the respondent is coming from a good family and he is also having good educational qualification and it is also seen from the findings of the court below that the respondent used to ill- treat the first petitioner after consuming alcohol and he had sold the properties and deposited those amounts in his accounts and he is getting income from that is a case projected by the petitioners in the lower court has not been fully established. However, on considering the evidence, the court below found that the petitioners are justified in residing separately.
8. It is also seen from the evidence of PW1 that she is now working in a private concern and getting salary apart from that she is having a car of her own. So, considering those aspects, the court below came to the conclusion that the first petitioner cannot be said to be incapable maintaining herself. She had not produced any document to show her income also though it was admitted by her that she is employed and getting some income. So, under the circumstances, it cannot be said that she will be coming under the purview of person unable to maintain herself in order to claim maintenance from her husband. So, under the circumstances, the court below was perfectly justified in denying maintenance to the first petitioner.
9. As regards the liability to pay the child is concerned, being a father he is expected to provide a reasonable amount for the maintenance of the child. The child is the female child and now she is studying 9th standard. She requires a reasonable amount for her educational expenses apart from food, cloth etc., Merely because he is not having employment, is not sufficient to deny maintenance to the child as he will have to do some work and pay a reasonable amount as maintenance she is also expected to live according to the status of the respondent as well. So, under the circumstances, the amount of `.2000/- fixed by the court below as maintenance to the child appears to be on a lower side and this court fees that that can be enhanced to `.3500/- and that will meet the ends of justice. While confirming the order rejecting maintenance to the first petitioner, the amount awarded to the child is enhanced to `.3500/- per month which the respondent is liable to pay from the date of petition and the first petitioner is entitled to receive the same and utilise the same for the benefit of the minor child. This will not prevent the first petitioner to approach for maintenance later if any change of and circumstances occur for her to apply for maintenance later.
With the above modification the revision petition is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE R.AV