Kerala High Court
Muhammed Haneefa vs Pathumma on 5 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 16TH MAGHA,1942
RPFC.No.2 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 29/2019 DATED 10-11-2020
OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPPALAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
MUHAMMED HANEEFA,
AGED 73 YEARS,
S/O. ABDULKHADAR, KINATTINGAL VEEDU,
CHERUTHURUTHI VILLAGE, DESOM,
THALAPILLI TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 679531.
BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 PATHUMMA,
AGED 52 YEARS,
D/o. SAITHALI, THAZHVARATHIL VEEDU,
NELLAYA AMSOM, POMBILAYA DESOM,
OTTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679335.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 05.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
R.P.(F.C.)No.2/2021
-2-
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the husband
and the respondent herein is the wife. The
court below as per order dated 10.11.2020 in
M.C.No.29/2019 directed the revision
petitioner to pay Rs.1500/- to the
respondent towards her monthly maintenance.
Aggrieved by the said order, the husband has
filed this revision petition.
2. Heard.
3. The wife contended that the
husband, who is the revision petitioner, is
doing fish business, earning Rs.50,000/- per
month. However, no evidence was produced by
R.P.(F.C.)No.2/2021
the wife to prove the same. The husband, on
the other hand, contended that the husband
is sick. To prove that he is sick, he
produced Exts.B1 to B4. Exts.B1 to B3 were
medical certificates, which did not contain
even the name of the Doctor who allegedly
treated the husband. The name of the disease
was also not mentioned in Exts.B1 to B3.
Ext.B4 was the medical certificate issued by
the Medical Officer of Primary Health
Centre, Vallathol Nagar. Since the Doctor
who issued Ext.B4 was not examined, the
court below did not accept the said medical
certificate. The court below, after
evaluating the materials, found that
R.P.(F.C.)No.2/2021
Exts.B1 to B4 could not be taken into
consideration to hold that RW1 is incapable
of doing any work.
4. Even though the learned counsel
for the revision petitioner has submitted
that the revision petitioner is suffering
from cardiac ailment, no convincing record
supporting the said argument had been
produced by the revision petitioner before
the court. The witnesses examined for the
revision petitioner also did not state that
the revision petitioner was not capable of
doing any work and that he is depending on
his son for his livelihood.
5. Having gone though the relevant
R.P.(F.C.)No.2/2021
inputs, the court below rightly found that
there is absolutely nothing to show that the
revision petitioner is incapable of doing
any work. The court below further observed
that RW1, being the husband, had the duty to
maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain
herself. There is no material to show that
the wife is having any job or other source
of income for her livelihood. Having gone
through the relevant inputs, I do not find
anything to hold that the finding by the
court below that the revision petitioner is
liable to pay maintenance to his wife
suffers from any illegality, impropriety or
incorrectness warranting interference by
R.P.(F.C.)No.2/2021
this Court. Taking into consideration of
the entire aspects, including the age of the
husband, the court below directed the
husband to pay only a maintenance of
Rs.1,500/- per month. The quantum of
maintenance awarded by the court below does
not appear to be excessive or unreasonable,
warranting interference by this Court.
In the result, this Revision Petition
stands dismissed.
Sd/-
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,
JUDGE
STK
