The husband is aggrieved by an order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam in favour of his wife and the child in M.C No.43/2009. Admittedly, she is a divorced wife. The child was aged 3 years as on the date of filing of the petition. The case of the wife is that she does not have any job or income of her own, and she is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, as a divorced woman. The revision petitioner resisted the claim made by the divorced wife on the contention that she has job and income to live on, and that she had already abandoned her claim under an agreement executed at the time of divorce. A further contention made by the revision petitioner is that in the original petition filed by her before the Family Court for custody of the child, she has stated that she has income of her own.
2. The Family Court conducted an enquiry in the proceedings and recorded evidence. The wife of the revision petitioner examined herself as PW1. But the revision petitioner did not adduce any evidence of his own. The wife was also subjected to effective cross examination. In the absence of any satisfactory evidence to prove the case of the revision petitioner, the trial court directed him to pay maintenance to the divorced wife at the rate of ₹1,500/- per month, and to the minor son at the rate of ₹1,500/- per month, as per the order dated 20.5.2013 in M.C.No.43/2009. The said order is under challenge in this revision.
3. Notice on admission was given to the respondents. But the wife of the revision petitioner did not turn up to contest the revision.
4. On hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and on a perusal of the case records, I find that even without being admitted to files this revision petition can be disposed of with some slight modification in the amount of maintenance awarded to the 1st respondent.
5. Of course the revision petitioner relies very much on an agreement alleged to have been executed at the time of divorce. But such an agreement was not produced in court during trial. He also relies on the statement made by her, regarding her and income in the original petition filed by her for custody of the child. But the revision petitioner did not care to produce a copy of the statement in the maintenance proceedings. Anyway, the impugned order shows that the 1st respondent has practically made an admission that she had some job at the time of divorce. However, the revision petitioner has not definitely stated in evidence what exactly her job is, or what exactly her income is. The 1st respondent is a degree holder in Mathematics, and she would admit that she can give tuition. The revision petitioner is admittedly a driver by profession.
6. In the above factual circumstances, I feel that the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court to the 1st respondent can be reduced to ₹1,000/- per month. This modification is being done on the basis of her statement regarding income, and also in view of the fact that she did not turn up to contest the revision, inspite of notice. As regards the child, I find that the amount of maintenance does not require any interference in revision. There is no doubt that a divorced lady is entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. When a divorced woman claims maintenance, it can be resisted by the husband only on the ground that she has her own job or income.
In the result, this revision petition is disposed of, with modification in the impugned order passed by the trial court, to the effect that the amount of maintenance payable to the 1st respondent under the impugned order shall be ₹1,000/- per month. The order in favour of the 2nd respondent is maintained.
P.UBAID JUDGE ab