A maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Kozhikode under Section 125 Cr.PC is under challenge in this revision. Claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner, the respondent herein filed MC.No.80 of 2009 before the Family Court, alleging desertion and neglect for years. Her case is that she was married by the revision petitioner on 23.10.2003, and she was driven out on 10.3.2009.
2. The revision petitioner entered appearance in the trial court and resisted the claim for maintenance on the contention that the petitioner is not his legally wedded wife, and she is not entitled to claim maintain.
3. The trial court conducted an enquiry in the proceedings and recorded evidence. The petitioner in MC was examined as Pw1 and the respondent was examined as Rw1. One witness was also examined on his side as Rw2.
On an appreciation of the evidence the Family Court found that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner. Accordingly, the trial court passed orders on 27.1.2010 granting maintenance to her at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month.
4. On hearing the counsel and on a perusal of the case records, I find no reason for interference in the order of the trial court. Of course, the revision petitioner has admitted cohabitation with the respondent for years. His case is that she had married one Madhu and the said marriage was subsisting when she started living with him. The said Madhu was examined on the side of the revision petitioner as Rw2. His evidence is that he had not married the respondent. Thus the previous marriage set up by the revision petitioner is not proved by him. The respondent herein has given evidence regarding her marriage with the revision petitioner. She has also given evidence denying the alleged marriage with Madhu. On appreciation of evidence I find that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner.
5. The amount awarded by the trial court is Rs.1,000/- per month. The award was passed in January, 2010, and now we are in May, 2014. The revision petition was filed in 2010. We all are aware of the present day cost of living. In such a situation, Rs.1,000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive. I find that the amount awarded by the trial court is quite reasonable.
In the result, this revision is dismissed as meritless.
The parties are bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
P. UBAID, (Judge) Kvs/-
-// true copy //-
PA TO JUDGE.