Counter petitioner in M.C.No.387/2012 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad is the revision petitioner herein.
2. The application was filed by the respondents herein claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,000/- each. It is alleged in the petition that, they married on 30/05/2010 and in that wedlock, the 2nd respondent was born. He had neglected to pay maintenance from 18/04/2012 onwards. On account of cruelty met by her in the matrimonial house, she was compelled to live seperately. The revision petitioner is employed in a baniyan company at Thirupur as a tailor and also having 46 cents of land and getting Rs.20,000/- per month as income. She is unable to maintain herself and the child, so she filed application for maintenance.
3. The revision petitioner appeared and filed counter admitting the marriage and paternity of the child. He denied that he is working in a baniyan company at Thirupur and also denied that he is having 46 cents of land. He denied the cruelty alleged against him. He also stated that he is prepared to look after the petitioner and the child. He prayed for dismissal of the application.
4. The first petitioner in the lower court was examined as PW1 and the revision petitioner was examined as CPW1. After considering the evidence of record, the court below found that the revision petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to the respondents and fixed the quantum of maintenance as Rs.3,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.1,500/- to the child. This is being challenged by the revision petitioner by filing the revision.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive and beyond the capacity of the revision petitioner to pay.
7. On the otherhand, the Counsel for the respondent submitted that the amount awarded is reasonable.
8. It is an admitted fact that the revision petitioner married the first respondent and the 2nd respondent was born in that wedlock. It is also an admitted fact that they were living seperately for sometime. On the basis of the complaint given by the 1st respondent, a crime was registered as crime no.429/2012, alleging offences under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code against the revision petitioner. It is also in a way admitted that after she started residing seperately with her child, no maintenance was provided by the revision petitioner. It is true that there is no documents produced to prove the income of the revision petitioner but however it was brought out in evidence that he is working as a tailor in Coimbatore. But he had claimed that, since he had undergone an operation, he is unable to work. But no document has been produced to prove that fact. So, considering these aspects, the Court below found that the 1st respondent herein is justified in living seperately and the revision petitioner is capable of paying maintenance and he had neglected to maintain his wife and child. As far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, the amount of Rs.1,500/- fixed by the Court below for the child cannot be said to be excessive. There is no evidence as such regarding the actual income for the revision petitioner, while working as a tailor and it may vary from month to month. But however, this Court feels that Rs.3,000/- fixed by the Court below for the 1st petitioner appears to be on a higher side and that can be refixed as Rs.2,500/- per month, which this Court feels to be reasonable. So, the amount payable to 1st respondent herein, who is the first petitioner in the lower court is refixed as Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) per month, while the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Court below for the child, as Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand Five Hundred only) is confirmed, and the finding of Court below that he is liable to pay maintenance from the date of petition is also confirmed. With the above modification of the quantum of maintenance payable to the first petitioner alone in the lower Court above, the revision petition is allowed in part. Office is directed to communicate the order to the Court below immediately. The amount if any, deposited by the revision petitioner as condition for staying the proceedings is directed to be released to the first respondent for her behalf or on behalf of the 2nd respondent as well. If the revision petitioner did not pay any amount, then the respondents are at liberty to execute the order passed by the Court below and modified by this Court and if, any amount is deposited as directed, then that will be adjusted towards the arrears payable as per the amount fixed by this Court.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the Court below at the earliest.
Sd/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE iap