IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944
RPFC NO. 84 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 90/2018 OF FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
SUDEER .B
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. BASHEERKUTTY, SHEMINA MANZIL,
KANNIMEL THEKKATHIL, KIZHAVOOOR,
MUKHATHALA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
BINU GEORGE
SMT.HEMALATHA
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER:
1 SUMAYYA
AGED 31 YEARS
D/O. NIZAMUDHEEN, PANDAKASALA KIZHAKKATHIL
M.S. NAGAR 21, KALLUMTHAZHAM, KILIKOLLOOR P.O,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 004
2 FATHIMATH SUHRA (MINOR),
AGED 6 YEARS, D/O. SUDHEER B,
PANDAKASALA KIZHAKKATHIL, M.S. NAGAR 21,
KALLUMTHAZHAM, KILIKOLLOOR P.O,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 004
(2ND RESPONDENT BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER
AND GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT.)
BY ADV P.V.DILEEP
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC NO. 84 OF 2021
2
ORDER
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2022 This revision petition filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') read with Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, is at the instance of the respondent-in M.C.No.90/2018, on the file of the Family Court, Kollam, where the petitioners are the respondents herein.
2. Order dated 28.12.2020 in M.C.No.90/2018 is under challenge in this revision petition, whereby the learned Family Court, Kollam granted maintenance to the first respondent herein, who is the petitioner-wife in the MC, at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month and the second respondent-minor, who was disabled at 75%, at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month.
RPFC NO. 84 OF 2021 3
3. While challenging the impugned order, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent is permanently employed in Oxford School, Palathara, and in order to prove the same, Exts.X1 to X3 were produced before the trial court, but the trial court not acted upon the same. In the impugned order, the Family Court observed that as per the evidence of CPW2 and Exts.X1 to X3, the monthly income of the first respondent herein would come to Rs.14,450/-. Then also, the Family Court granted Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife.
4. In this case, the petitioner raised contention that he had only a private job and therefore, he could not pay maintenance to the first respondent.
5. Going by the evidence of CPW2, the job of the 1st respondent is fully established. No challenge raised RPFC NO. 84 OF 2021 4 to dispute the same. It is interesting to note that, during cross-examination of CPW2, the other side put only one question, confining the same to the fact that the first respondent used to take leave from employment. In fact, nothing was asked during the cross-examination of CPW2 to challenge Exts.X1 to X3. Therefore, it is to be noted that the Family Court went wrong in granting Rs.3,000/- as maintenance to the first respondent herein, who evidently having job and income to maintain herself. Therefore, the claim of maintenance allowance at the instance of the first respondent and the order impugned is interfered accordingly.
6. Going by the impugned order, the Family Court granted Rs.8,000/- alone to the minor child, who was 75% permanently disabled, as could be read out from Ext.P4. Therefore, it could be held that the RPFC NO. 84 OF 2021 5 maintenance granted by the Family Court to the minor child is not at all on the higher side. Therefore, the said order is confirmed.
In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in part, as indicated above.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the court below concerned, within one week, for information and compliance.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE nkr