Counter petitioner in M.C.No.93/2013 on the file of Family Court, Kasaragod, is the revision petitioner herein. 2nd respondent herein is the divorced wife of the revision petitioner. 2. Earlier she filed M.C.No.60/2002, claiming maintenance and after enquiry that petition was disposed of, directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of ₹2,000/- per month. She is not able to maintain with that amount. Further she has no source of income. The respondent had got increased income and he is capable of providing more amount as well. He is working in American Embassy, U.A.E. and getting more than ₹75,000/-
per month. He is having landed property fetching income as well. She requires at least ₹6,000/- per month for her maintenance. So she filed the application for enhancement of maintenance under Section 127(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. The revision petitioner, who is the counter petitioner in the lower court entered appearance and filed detailed counter stating that, respondent herein had desserted him and professed Christianity and she had in fact deprived her society and co-habitation to him without any valid reason and she had given consent to have second marriage as well. He had lost his gulf employment and he is now unable to do any major or hard work due to his health condition. The allegation that, he is getting more income and getting a monthly income of ₹75,000/- and income from landed property etc., are not correct. The amount of ₹6,000/- claimed is excessive. In fact she herself was responsible for divorce and so she is not entitled to get enhanced maintenance and prayed for dismissal of the application.
4. 2nd respondent was examined as PW1 and the revision petitioner was examined as RW1 and Ext.B1 series were marked on the side of the revision petitioner. After considering the evidence on record, the court below found that the amount of ₹2,000/- awarded in the earlier proceedings is very low and that is not sufficient for her livelihood and after considering the family status etc., fixed the amount enhancing the maintenance to ₹4,000/- per month and directed the revision petitioner to pay the amount from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed. Though a mediation was attempted, that failed also.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, he is not having any employment now and the documents produced will go to show that, he is having other ailments also. He will have to maintain his wife and children. So the amount of ₹4,000/- fixed by the court below is excessive and exorbitant. Further she is not entitled to get enhancement as well.
7. On the other hand, the counsel the for the 2nd respondent submitted that, the amount awarded is in fact very less and no interference is called for.
8. It is an admitted fact that, the 2nd respondent is the divorced wife of the present revision petitioner. It is also an admitted fact that, earlier the 2nd respondent filed M.C.No.60/2002 before the Family Court, Kasaragod, for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that application was allowed and maintenance was awarded at the rate of ₹2,000/- per month. Thereafter, as per order in O.P.No.233/2012, filed by the revision petitioner herein, the marriage was dissolved and now the 2nd respondent has attained the status of a divorced wife. So in the case of a divorced wife, till her re-marriage, she is entitled to get maintenance from her former husband, unless he is able to prove that, she is living separately by mutual consent or by some arrangement as per custom or she is having sufficient income to maintain herself. No such case has been established in this case. So there is a statutory liability on the part of the revision petitioner to provide reasonable maintenance to the divorced wife. The amount of ₹2,000/-
was fixed in the year 2002. Considering the status of parties and also cost of living, it is very difficult to live with that amount for a divorced woman, who is having no income of her own. Though the 2nd respondent had contended that, the revision petitioner is having a monthly income of ₹75,000/- and also having income from the landed property, no evidence has been adduced to prove those facts. The documents produced by the revision petitioner namely B1 series are not sufficient to come to the conclusion that, he is totally disabled for doing any work. He had also no case that he is not doing any employment as well. 2nd respondent is entitled to get reasonable enhancement of maintenance amount, which is sufficient to meet her requirements and lead a decent life as well.
Considering the circumstances and also the present living condition and cost of living the amount of ₹4,000/- per month fixed by the court below cannot be said to be excessive. So I do not find any reason to interfere with the amount fixed by the court below, as it appears to be just and proper, considering the status of the parties. So the petition lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
If he is able bodied person, then it is settled law that, he has to do some work to earn money to provide maintenance to his wife and children at a reasonable amount. The counsel for the revision petitioner prayed some time for payment of the arrear amount. Considering the amount involved, the petitioner is granted six months time to pay the arrears of maintenance in equal monthly instalments and he is directed to pay the monthly maintenance regularly without fail. The amount if any deposited can be directed to be paid to the 2nd respondent.
If the revision petitioner commits any default in paying the arrears as directed, then the 2nd respondent is at liberty to move the court for execution of the order passed. If any amount was deposited by the revision petitioner as per the orders of this court, the same is directed to be adjusted towards the arrears payable and the revision petitioner is directed to pay only the balance amount.
In the result, the revision petition is dismissed with the above observation.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court, immediately.
Sd/-
K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss