Petitioner in M.C.No.85/2012 on the file of the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, is the revision petitioner herein. She filed the petition for maintenance against the respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner is the wife of the respondent, by virtue of the marriage solemnised on 16.05.2010 at Sreekrishna Temple, Guruvayoor and there is no issues in the wed-lock. Respondent is not maintaining the petitioner. He is running a computer assembling unit in Riyadh and getting a monthly income of ₹3,00,000/- per month. Petitioner is not having any income to maintain herself. She requires ₹25,000/- for her maintenance and the respondent is capable of paying the amount. So she filed the application claiming for maintenance at the rate of ₹25,000/- per month.
3. Though notice was served on the respondent, respondent did not appear. He has produced certain documents, showing that, he is regularly paying the maintenance.
4. The petitioner filed proof affidavit. It is also seen that, the lower court has dismissed the application on the ground that, future maintenance was allowed at the rate of ₹2,000/-per month in O.P.774/2012 and so she is not entitled to get maintenance again in this petition and dismissed the application, which is being challenged by the petitioner before this court.
5. Since respondent entered appearance, this court felt that, the revision can be admitted and disposed of today itself. So the revision is admitted, heard both sides and disposed of today itself.
6. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, by virtue of the statutory provisions under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner is entitled to maintain independent application and the petitioner had already filed an appeal against O.P.No.774/2012 as MAT Appeal No.703/2013 before this court and that is pending. According to the counsel for the revision petitioner, the lower court ought to have granted reasonable amount as maintenance, instead of dismissing the application.
7. The counsel for the respondent submitted that, in O.P.No.774/2012, the petitioner claimed relief of return of gold ornaments, arrears of maintenance and also future maintenance and the Family court by separate judgement allowed the petition in part and directed to return the gold ornaments or its value and rejected the claim for past maintenance and allowed future maintenance at the rate of ₹2,000/- per month. So the lower court was perfectly justified in dismissing the application.
8. It is an admitted fact that, the revision petitioner and the respondent are man and wife and their marriage and relationship is not disputed. It is also not in dispute that, there is no issues in the relationship. The petitioner filed the application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code, on the allegation that, the respondent had neglected to maintain her, though he is capable of maintain her and she is not having independent income to maintain herself. It is also an admitted fact that, the petitioner filed O.P.No.774/2012 before the same Family court, claiming past maintenance, future maintenance and return of gold ornaments. After evidence, Family court judge by a separate judgment allowed that petition in part, directing the respondent herein to return the gold ornaments or its value and rejected the relief of past maintenance, but granted future maintenance at the rate of ₹2,000/- per month from the date of petition in that case.
Since, future maintenance has already been granted by the Family court, in the capacity as a civil Judge, that finding is binding on the Criminal court which considering the application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code as well.
So under the circumstances, the family Court Judge exercising the power of a magistrate under Section 125 of the Code, rightly dismissed the application on the ground that, future maintenance has already been granted to the petitioner in O.P.No.774/2012. There is no illegality committed by the court below in dismissing the application. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance awarded, she is at liberty to challenge the same in the MAT Appeal filed by her, against the judgement in O.P.No.774/2012, which is pending before this court.
With the above observation the revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss