Kerala High Court
Jijomon P. Mathew vs Tintu Joseph on 27 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1944
RPFC NO. 37 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.12.2021 IN MC 110/2018 OF FAMILY
COURT, THIRUVALLA
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT :-
JIJOMON P. MATHEW
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.MATHEW, PODIPPARA HOUSE, NOOROMMAVU P.O.,
ANICADU VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN -689 589.
BY ADVS.
JOSEPH GEORGE
BIJO THOMAS GEORGE
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER & STATE :-
1 TINTU JOSEPH
D/O..JOSEPH, THUNDIYIL HOUSE,
CHANNANIKKADU P.O, CHANNANIKKADU VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 589.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
BY ADVS.
ARUN.B.VARGHESE
AISWARYA V.S.(K/001596/2018)
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC NO. 37 OF 2022
2
ORDER
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2022
This revision is filed challenging an order passed by Family
Court, Thiruvalla (for short 'the court below') on 17.12.2021 in
M.C.No.110/2018 directing the revision petitioner to pay monthly
maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.3,500/- to the respondent.
Parties to this revision will hereinafter be referred to as the
petitioner and the respondent in accordance with their status in the
original M.C
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the
respondent that during cross-examination it was admitted by the
petitioner that she needs only Rs.4,000/- to maintain herself and she
is earning that from her profession as a tailor. According to him
during re-examination a leading question was put to the petitioner
by her counsel and she answered that with Rs.4,000/- she could
only meet her expenses of food. In the backdrop, the court below
has ordered the respondent to pay monthly maintenance allowance
at the rate of Rs.3,500/-. According to the learned counsel, a
RPFC NO. 37 OF 2022
leading question ought not to have been permitted by the court
below in re-examination and the evidence that has been tendered
ought to have been discarded. Accordingly, he canvassed for a
modification of the impugned order directing the respondent to pay
Rs.3,500/- as monthly maintenance allowance. Admittedly
respondent is an auto driver. Both parties did not adduced evidence
to establish the exact monthly income earned by the respondent.
True that the petitioner while tendering oral evidence has admitted
to have engagement in tailoring work and earning of around
Rs.4,000/-. But, one cannot lost sight of the factum that the cost of
living in the year 2018, when the M.C was filed would not allow
her to sustain with Rs.4,000/-. For the reason that a lady has
disclosed her earning from a job as tailor, the income earning
capacity therefrom being unstable, the husband cannot canvass for
exemption from payment of monthly maintenance allowance to her.
Rs.3,500/- being a just and reasonable sum stands ordered in favour
of the petitioner, there is no scope for interference. Revision fails
and is dismissed.
RPFC NO. 37 OF 2022
It is submitted that arrears from the date of entitlement
are outstanding. In that event, this Court is inclined to direct the
respondent to pay Rs.25,000/- in lumpsum in the month of August,
2022 and to pay the balance amount in five equal monthly
installments commencing from September, 2022. The respondent
shall also pay monthly maintenance allowance due for each month
from August onwards without failure. If the 1st payment as directed
above is defaulted, the petitioner is free to resort to execution
proceedings.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH
JUDGE
SMA
