The first revision petitioner herein is the divorced wife of the respondent, and the second revision petitioner is the minor son born in their wedlock. The respondent married the first revision petitioner on 13.05.2001, and the marriage was dissolved by a decree of the Family Court, Kozhikode dated 27.05.2011 in O.P 632/2010. Pending the proceedings for divorce brought by the husband the revision petitioners approach the family court Vadakara with a claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. The respondent herein entered appearance in the trail court and contested the claim of his divorced wife on the contention that the marriage was dissolved on the ground of her illicit and extra marital connection with another man, and also on the ground that she has her own job and income.
3. The trial court conducted an enquiry in the proceedings and recorded evidence on both sides. The first revision petitioner examined herself as PW1 and the respondent examined himself as RW1. Two witnesses were also examined on his side. Exts. B1 to B3 documents were also marked on the side of the respondent. To prove his case effectively by documents the respondent caused production of some documents during trial, and accordingly Exts. X1 to X5 were marked at his instance. On an appreciation of the evidence the trial court found that the first revision petitioner is not entitled to get maintenance for the reason that she has job and income, and that the marriage stands dissolved on a definite finding of the competent court that she has illicit and extra marital connections with another person. However the trial court granted maintenance to the child at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month as per the order dated 25.02.2013 in M.C 29/2011.
4. Aggrieved by the rejection of her claim for maintenance, and dissatisfied with the amount granted to the child, the divorced wife of the respondent has come up in revision.
5. On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the case records I find that the amount of maintenance granted to the child requires slight modification, but the first revision petitioner is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Admittedly she is the divorced wife of the respondent, and she has also admitted the reason for divorce granted by the family court. It is submitted that the Ext. B1 divorce decree has become final. The competent matrimonial court has found that the first revision petitioner had illicit affair and extra marital connections with another person during the subsistence of her marriage with the respondent herein. Now such a lady has come before this court claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Even otherwise she cannot claim maintenance because there is clear evidence to show that she has her own job and income there from. It stands proved by documents that she is employed in a medical shop. She also admitted during trial that she had job in a medical shop for sometime. There is nothing to show that she has lost the said job, or that she is now jobless. I find that she is not incapable of maintaining herself. I find no illegality or irregularity in the order of the trial court disallowing maintenance to her.
6. Of course the child is now aged 8 or 9 years. We can think of the expenses and requirements of such a child pursuing education in a good school. The respondent is ready to pay reasonably to his child and he does not plead any constraints as regards the quantum of maintenance. I find that the amount granted to the child can be reasonably enhanced to Rs. 2,500/- per month. The present day cost of living and also the needs and necessities will justify such an enhancement. With this modification, this revision can be allowed in part.
In the result this revision petition is allowed in part. The order of the trial court disallowing maintenance to the first revision petitioner is confirmed. However the order in favour of the second revision petitioner is modified to the effect that the amount payable by the respondent to the child shall be Rs. 2,500/- per month. Maintenance to the child at the enhanced rate shall be payable from the date of filing of this revision petition (14.06.2013).
P.UBAID, JUDGE sab /True copy/ PA TO JUDGE