The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C. No.99/2013 on the files of Family Court, Kasaragod. He is the husband of the divorced respondent herein. The above petition was filed by the respondent herein under section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance allowance from the revision petitioner.
2. It is the case of the respondent that she was the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner herein. The marriage was solemnized on 26.08.2012 as per the customs and ceremonies prevailing in the Muslim community; but Talak was pronounced subsequently. So, she is entitled to get maintenance allowance from the revision petitioner under section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But the revision petitioner has been neglecting to maintain her and refused to pay maintenance allowance from 12.11.2012 onwards.
3. It is also alleged that as per the terms of Mediation, the revision petitioner agreed to pay Rs.1,40,000/- and 3 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the respondent. But, the said agreement has not been performed so far. The respondent has no job or any source of income to eke out her livelihood. From 12.11.2012 onwards she is depending upon her parents for livelihood, whereas the revision petitioner is having real estate business and he is getting more than Rs.30,000/- per month. She claimed an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month towards her maintenance.
4. The revision petitioner filed a counter admitting the marriage and divorce effected subsequently between the parties. He contended that there was no reason for the respondent to leave his company. So, by way of mediation, Talak was effected. He denied the contention that he is having an income of Rs.30,000/- per month. According to him, the respondent is able enough to maintain herself. He is a poor coolie worker and has a large family including his first wife and four children to maintain out of his meager income which he is getting.
5. After considering the rival contentions, the court below directed the revision petitioner to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month. The legality and propriety of this Order is under challenge in this revision petition.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner advanced arguments challenging the findings of the court below whereby the revision petitioner is directed to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month. According to him, the court below has miserably failed to appreciate the facts and evidence in its correct perspective.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent advanced arguments to justify the direction to pay maintenance allowance at the rates specified above to the respondent.
8. The question to be considered is whether the court below can be justified in directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.2,500/-per month.
9. Going by the impugned order it is seen that the marriage as well as the divorce subsequently effected is not in dispute. The respondent has admitted that they lived together upto 12.11.2012 and thereafter, he has not paid any amount towards maintenance. Indisputably, under section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure a divorced wife is also entitled to get maintenance allowance. Therefore, I cannot find fault with the court below for finding that the respondent is entitled to get maintenance allowance from the revision petitioner, even though they have resided together as husband and wife for a short period only.
10. Coming to the quantum of maintenance allowance determined by the Court below, it is the case of the respondent that the revision petitioner is having real estate business and he is getting Rs.30,000/- per month. But according to the revision petitioner he is only a coolie worker and he is getting Rs.250/- per day. I am unable to accept the said contention as it is a matter of common knowledge that a manual labourer in Kerala is getting Rs.500/- onwards per day. Therefore, even if his contention that he is working as a coolie worker is accepted, I am of the opinion that the direction to pay Rs.2,500/- per month is just and proper. Considering the living cost of the respondent and the admitted income of the revision petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the court below.
11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner urged for granting some time to pay the arrear by way of instalment. Having regard to the fact that the revision petitioner is having four children in his first wedlock, four months time is granted to pay the entire arrear, provided that he shall pay half of the entire arrear within two months and the balance shall be paid within the next two months. In the event of failure to pay the first instalment within time this instalment facility will stand automatically vacated and the trial court is at liberty to release the entire arrear in lumpsum.
Hence this revision petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed accordingly.
jjj //True Copy// P.A. to Judge Sd/-
K. HARILAL, JUDGE