The petitioner in MC.No.136/2013 on the file of the Family Court, Attingal is the revision petitioner herein. She filed a petition for maintenance against the respondent herein under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is alleged in the petition that the respondent herein married the revision petitioner on 24.12.2007 as per custom and at the time of marriage, 72 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.5 lakhs was given to the respondent herein. They lived as husband and wife for some time and thereafter due to the ill treatment met at the hands of the respondent, the petitioner had to leave the matrimonial home on 18.11.2010 and earlier there was a mediation and as per the mediation, she was expected to come to the matrimonial home. But later it was revealed that the respondent married another woman on 26.12.2010 and she could not go and live with him. She has no income of her own. The respondent is getting a monthly income of Rs.45,000/- and she required not less than Rs.15,000/- for her maintenance. So she prayed for maintenance at that rate. 2. The respondent filed counter denying the allegations and he also stated that she has voluntarily left the house and she is not entitled to maintenance. She also filed O.P.No.173/2013 before the Family Court, Nedumangad for return of gold ornaments and other reliefs, which was transferred to Family Court, Attingal, where it was renumbered as M.C.No.2000/2013 and both the cases were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. During the pendency of the proceedings, she filed O.P.No.675/2011 for divorce on 18.6.2012 and obtained an ex parte decree for divorce and thereafter married one Shibu on 24.2.2013. Considering these aspects, the learned family court judge, allowed the original petition in part and disposed the maintenance application fixing a consolidated amount of Rs.25,000/- as maintenance payable to the petitioner by the respondent. Dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance granted, the present revision has been filed.
3. Considering the nature and scope of enquiry, this Court felt that the revision can be disposed of at the time of admission itself after hearing the counsel for the revision petitioner and dispensing with notice to the respondent.
4. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the respondent was working abroad and getting a monthly income of Rs.45,000/- and she was neglected to be maintained from 18.11.2010 onwards. So the quantum of maintenance fixed by the court below is very law.
5. It is an admitted fact that the respondent married the revision petitioner in the year 2007 and they are living together as husband and wife till 18.11.2010 and thereafter she is living separately. It is also seen from the documents obtained from the court below that the present petitioner filed MC.No.402/2012 before the Family Court, Nedumangad on 13.7.2012 and it is seen from the order that the present petitioner filed O.P.No.675/2011 before the Family Court, Nedumangad for divorce on 18.6.2012 and obtained an ex parte order of divorce and thereafter she married one Shibu on 24.2.2013 and she is now living with Shibu. Since this case is within the jurisdiction of Attingal court, the case was transferred to Family Court, Attingal from Nedumangd Family Court where it was renumbered as MC.No.136/2013. The court below found that there is no evidence to show the actual income of the respondent. Further the court below found that the revision petitioner will be entitled to get maintenance till her remarriage as she is a divorced wife The petition for maintenance was filed before the Family Court, Nedumangad on 30.7.2012 and she remarried on 24.2.2013. So after the filing of the petition for maintenance she is entitled to get maintenance till remarriage namely 24.2.2013. It is true that the court below had not fixed monthly maintenance but awarded a consolidated amount of Rs.25,000/- as maintenance. Considering the period from the date of filing of the maintenance application and the date of remarriage, there is a gap of seven months and if the consolidated amount passed by the court below is divided by seven, it will come more than Rs.3,000/- per month which cannot be said to be less considering the status of the parties. So considering the circumstances, she is entitled to get maintenance from the date of desertion namely 18.11.2010 cannot be accepted as even under section 125 of Code, the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance either from the date of order or from the date of filing the application. So, under the circumstances, the consolidated amount of maintenance fixed by the court below cannot be said to be less and the petitioner is not entitled to get enhancement of the amount as well. So I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the court below as it appears to be just and proper and the revision is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the revision petition is dismissed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl