The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C. No.548/2009 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram. He is the husband of the 1st respondent herein as well as the father of the 2nd respondent, a minor daughter aged five years. They filed the above M.C claiming maintenance allowance from the revision petitioner under Sec.125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to them, he has been neglecting to pay maintenance allowance to them after 10-12- 2008 onwards. The husband filed O.P. No.382/2009 for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court, after conducting joint trial, dismissed the O.P. No.382/2009 but allowed the M.C. No.548/2009 by directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.2,200/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.600/- to the 2nd respondent per month from the date of filing of the M.C. and also authorised the 1st respondent to receive the maintenance allowance in respect of the 2nd respondent also. The legality and propriety of the quantum of maintenance allowance determined by the court below is under challenge in this revision petition.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the court below has miserably failed to appreciate the facts and evidence in its correct perspective and the quantum of compensation determined by the court below is excessive and disproportionate with the income of the revision petitioner.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the quantum of maintenance allowance determined by the court below is just and proper and there is no reason to interfere with the fixation of maintenance allowance by the court below.
4. The short question which arises for consideration is whether the court below can be justified in directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance allowance as referred above. The marital status of the 1st respondent and the paternity of the 2nd respondent are admitted. It follows that he is liable to pay maintenance allowance to the respondents under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C unless he proves that the 1st respondent is residing separately without sufficient cause. Even though he has filed O.P. No.382/2009 for restitution of conjugal rights, the court below has dismissed the same. So, I find that the revision petitioner failed to prove that the 1st respondent is residing separately without sufficient cause.
5. What remains to be considered is whether the quantum of maintenance allowance fixed by the court below is just and proper. It has come out in evidence that he was working in a Gulf country for the last ten years and now he is at station. Working as a driver, he himself admitted before the court below that he is getting Rs.200/- - 300/- per day. So also he deposed before the Family Court that he married again and he has sufficient means to maintain two wives. In view of his own admission, the court below can be justified in directing the revision petitioner to pay half of his entire monthly income to the respondents 1 and 2. In this analysis, I concurred with the findings of the court below. There is no illegality or impropriety in the determination of the quantum of maintenance allowance.
Hence, this Revision Petition (Family Court) will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
K.HARILAL, JUDGE.
//true copy// St/-
P.S. To Judge