Counter petitioner in M.C.No.199/08 on the file of the Family Court, Kottayam, Ettumannoor is the revision petitioner herein.
2. The petition was filed by wife and child of the revision petitioner seeking maintenance.
3. It is alleged in the petition that the marriage between them was solemnized on 11.05.2005 and one child was born in the wedlock and due to the cruelty met at the hands of the revision petitioner, first petitioner had to leave the company on 28.08.2007. Thereafter, no maintenance was paid. First petitioner is without any income, she is depending on her parents and her brothers for the livelihood of herself and the child. The revision petitioner is working as a carpenter also doing electrical job and getting Rs.9,000/- per month as income. First petitioner requires Rs.2,000/- and second petitioner requires Rs.1,000/- for their maintenance. So, they prayed for granting the maintenance.
4. The counter petitioner remain ex-parte and it is reported that he is out of India. His brother appeared on getting notice, but not contested the case.
5. First petitioner was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 was marked. After considering the evidence, the court below allowed the application in part directing the revision petitioner to pay Rs.1,500/- to the first petitioner and Rs.500/- to the second petitioner as maintenance from the date of petition namely, 19.08.2008 and also allowed to realize Rs.1,000/- as cost from the counter petitioner in the lower court who is the revision petitioner herein. This is being challenged by the petitioner by filing this revision.
6. Heard the Counsel for the revision petitioner on admission.
7. Notice was issued on admission to first and second respondent and they were represented by the Counsel. Since the respondents have appeared, this court felt that the revision can be admitted and heard and disposed of on merits. So, the revision is admitted and heard and disposed of today itself.
8. The Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he could not adduce any evidence and refusal to live together was willful and as such, respondents are not entitled to get any maintenance.
9. The Counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no merit in the submission.
10. On going through the order of the court below though it appears to be an ex parte order, the fact that they are living separately and no maintenance was provided has not been challenged as well. Further, considering the fact that he is working abroad as seen from the observation of the order that he is working abroad and his brother appeared on getting summons, this court feels that the amount of Rs.1,500/- to the first petitioner and Rs.500/- to the second petitioner and cost of Rs.1,000/- ordered by the court below cannot be said to be excessive and I don't find any reason to interfere with the order of maintenance passed by the court below. Though it is an ex parte order, care has been taken by the court below in fixing the quantum of maintenance payable. So, I don't find any reason to interfere with the order of maintenance passed by the court below as it cannot be said to be excessive. So, the revision lacks bona fides and the revision is dismissed.
In the result, the revision is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge