Counter petitioner in M.C.No.607/2010 on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur, is the revision petitioner herein. The case was filed by the respondent herein, who is the divorced wife of the revision petitioner, claiming maintenance from the revision petitioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is alleged in the petition that, the marriage was solemnised on 08.05.1994 and thereafter they were living as husband and wife and later he desserted her. The respondent is a carpenter getting ₹20,000/- per month and she requires ₹5,000/- per month as maintenance. Respondent who is the revision petitioner herein filed counter contending that he filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights and she did not appear and thereafter he filed O.P.No.91/2009 for divorce and the same was allowed and he married another woman and a child was born to him in that wedlock. She had left the company without any reason. She is doing some black magic and earning sufficient income and he is not getting any income as alleged in the petition, so he is not liable to pay maintenance to the respondent and he prayed for dismissal of the application.
2. Respondent herein was examined as PW1 and the revision petitioner was examined as RW1 and Ext.D1 was marked on the side of the revision petitioner. After considering the evidence on record, court below found that respondent is entitled to get maintenance and directed the revision petitioner to pay a maintenance at the rate of ₹2,000/- per month from the date of petition. This order is being challenged by the revision petitioner.
3. Respondent appeared through Adv. Sri.
Prabin Benny .C. Since respondent had appeared, this court felt that, the revision can be admitted, heard and disposed of today itself on merit. So the revision is admitted.
4. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, she is now a divorced wife and after divorce he married again and having a child to be looked after. So he is a poor carpenter getting only meager income and he is unable to pay maintenance. She is doing some black magic and getting income, which is sufficient to meet her requirements.
5. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent submitted that, she is without any income and the amount awarded is even meagre, which is not sufficient to meet the her requirements.
6. It is an admitted fact that, the revision petitioner married the respondent herein on 08.05.1994 and they lived husband and wife for some time and thereafter they started living separately. It is seen from Ext.D1 order produced by the revision petitioner herein that, divorce has been ordered as per order in O.P.No.91/2009 dated 17.07.2009. So now the status of the respondent is that of a divorced wife. Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a divorced wife is also entitled to get maintenance from her former husband, till she is remarried or till her death, unless it is proved by the former husband that, she is having sufficient income to maintain herself. In this case, though the revision petitioner had a case that, she is doing some black magic and getting sufficient income, there is no acceptable evidence adduced to prove that fact. So the court below was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that, the respondent is entitled to get maintenance from the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner had no case that he is without any income. Admittedly, he is a carpenter by profession. It is true that after divorce, he re-married and having a child in that wedlock and he has to look after them also. But at the same time, that will not be a ground for denying maintenance to his former wife, which she is entitled to get by virtue of the statutory provision. Further, though the respondent claimed ₹5,000/- per month as maintenance, the court below had considered all the aspects and fixed the quantum of maintenance payable at ₹2,000/- per month, which cannot be said to be excessive, considering the cost of living and the status of the parties. So the court below was perfectly justified in ordering the maintenance from the date of petition and the order does not call for any interference and the revision lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. The counsel for the revision petitioner prayed six months time to pay the arrears. This was opposed by the counsel for the respondent. However considering the fact that the maintenance application was field in the year 2010, and huge amount is in arrears, seven months time is granted to the revision petitioner to pay the amount in equal monthly instalments. If any default is committed by the revision petitioner in payment of the amount, then the respondent is entitled to execute the order, in accordance with law. Communicate this order to the court below at the earliest.
Sd/-
K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy// P.A. to Judge ss