Counter petitioner in M.C.No.349/2013 on the file of the Family Court, Nedumangad, is the revision petitioner herein. Respondents, who are the wife and child of the revision petitioner, filed the application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner married the first respondent on 31.01.2009 and in that wedlock 2nd respondent was born to them. Thereafter he was not maintaining them from 10.11.2012 onwards. She has no other income. Revision petitioner is conducting a catering service and getting ₹800/- per day and he is also a painter and doing painting works getting ₹350/- per day. They require maintenance at the rate of ₹3,000/- each.
3. Respondent appeared and filed objection, admitting the marital relationship and the paternity of the child. But according to him she left the house voluntarily. He is not having the income as alleged. So she is not entitled to get maintenance.
4. First petitioner was examined as PW1 and counter petitioner was examined as CW1. After considering the evidence on record, the court below found that the petitioners have no other income and unable to maintain themselves and directed the revision petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of ₹3,000/- to the first petitioner and ₹2,000/- to the 2nd petitioner. This is being challenged by the revision petitioner by filing the above revision.
5. Though notice was served on the respondents, they did not appear.
6. Heard the counsel for the petitioner.
7. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the amount awarded is excessive and she is residing separately without any reasonable cause.
8. I have gone through the order passed by the court below. It is seen from the discussions in the order, that the allegation of desertion on the part of the respondents herein as claimed by the revision petitioner appears to be not correct and in fact he had deserted them and not paid maintenance. It is also come out in evidence that first respondent has no independent income to maintain herself and the child. The petitioner is an able bodied person and he had no case that he is disabled from doing any work. It is settled law that, if a person is able bodied and able to do work, then, though he is not having any permanent job or income, he will have to do physical work and earn money and pay maintenance to the wife and children. 2nd petitioner is aged only two years. So the amount of ₹2,000/- awarded to the 2nd petitioner appears to be on the higher side. As far as the first petitioner is concerned, the amount of ₹3,000/- appears to be reasonable. So the amount payable to the 2nd petitioner is reduced to ₹1,500/- and refixed as ₹1,500/- per month which the revision petitioner is liable to pay from the date of petition as ordered by the court below.
With the above modification alone, the order passed by the court below is modified and the revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Three months time is granted to the revision petitioner to pay the amount. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court below at the earliest.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, (Judge) // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss