Gopakumar vs Geethu.T.Balan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6524 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
           WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                              RPFC NO. 233 OF 2016
     AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 195/2013 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA
REVISION PETITIONER/S:

             GOPAKUMAR
             AGED 34 YEARS
             S/O. OLIPARAMBIL GOPI, POYYA VILLAGE, CHENTHURUTHI DESOM,
             P.O. MALA PALLIPURAM, PIN- 680 732, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.K.M.FIROZ,SRI.S.KANNAN
             SMT.M.SHAJNA, SMT.UMMUL FIDA



RESPONDENT/S:

     1       GEETHU.T.BALAN
             AGED 26 YEARS
             D/O. THEKKETHALAKKAL BALAN, MUEDATHIRINJI VILLAGE,
             CHETTIYAL DESOM, P.O. EDATHIRINJI, PIN- 680
             122.MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

     2       GAYATHRI GOPAKUMAR
             AGED 4 YEARS
             MINOR AGED 4 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT,
             GUARDIAN MOTHER, D/O. THEKKETHALAKKAL BALAN, AGED 26
             YEARS,EDATHIRINJI VILLAGE, CHETTIYAL DESOM, P.O. EDATHIRINJI,
             PIN- 680 122.MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.


         THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 R.P.(FC) No.233/2016
                                  -2-




                            ORDER

The husband/respondent in M.C. No.195/2013 on the files of

Family Court, Irinjalakkuda has approached this Court

challenging the order directing him to pay Rs.3,000/- each to

the wife and minor child.

2. The marriage between the 1st petitioner and

respondent was solemnized on 31.01.2011. After marriage, they

lived as husband and wife at the matrimonial house. In

wedlock, a female child was born and is under the custody of

the 1st petitioner. The case of the wife is that the respondent

has neglected to maintain her from 10.12.2012 onwards. He is

addicted to alcohol and used to torture her under the influence

of alcohol. She has no source of income and is depending upon R.P.(FC) No.233/2016

her father for livelihood. The respondent is a document writer

and earns around Rs.60,000/- per month. The petitioners need

Rs.5,000/- each as monthly maintenance.

3. The respondent filed counter-affidavit denying the

entire allegations. He denied the fact that he was working as a

document writer and earning Rs.60,000/- per month. His

contention is that he is working as an employee in a private

company, namely Campco, and getting only Rs.9,000/- as

salary. His stand is that he is ready to look after the minor child

and his wife, but the wife is reluctant to come and live with

him. Hence, the 1st petitioner is not entitled to claim any

maintenance as she is living separately without any sufficient

reason.

4. The petitioner was examined as PW1, and the witness

was examined as PW2. The respondent got himself examined as R.P.(FC) No.233/2016

RW1. Ext.B1 salary certificate was produced and marked on the

side of the respondent. The Family Court, on appreciation of

the oral as well as documentary evidence, came to the finding

that the petitioners are entitled to maintenance and fixed the

maintenance at Rs.3,000/- each.

5. Heard the counsel for the petitioner.

6. The counsel for the petitioner herein submits that

the wife has withdrawn from his company without any

sufficient reason, hence, she is not entitled to claim any

maintenance. He is always ready and willing to take his wife

and his daughter along with him, but she is so adamant to come

and live with him, without any reason. The counsel for the

petitioner further submits that the Court below has also stated

in the order that she was not willing to come and live with him

though she had a contention that she is ready and willing to live R.P.(FC) No.233/2016

with the respondent, provided he stops taking alcohol. In such

a circumstance, the Court below was not justified in allowing

maintenance to the wife, submits the petitioner.

7. Along with M.C. 195/2013, O.P. 593/2013 was filed by

the petitioner herein for restitution of conjugal rights. After

evaluating the evidence adduced, the Family Court dismissed

the same against which an appeal was filed as M.A. 494/2016

before this Court. This Court by judgment dated 25.05.2016

dismissed the same. Hence, the petitioner cannot contend that

the wife was living separately without any sufficient reason.

8. During cross-examination of RW1, the husband

stated before the Court that he needs at least Rs.5,000/- for his

monthly expense. And when a specific question was asked

whether the same amount is required by the wife too, he

answered in the positive. Though Ext.B1 certificate was R.P.(FC) No.233/2016

produced by the respondent to contend that he was earning

Rs.9,000/- per month as salary, the person who issued such

certificate was not examined and it is not properly proved.

Hence, the Family Court did not take into consideration Ext.B1.

The respondent does not have a contention that he is not able-

bodied or unable to do any work and earn income. In such

circumstances, the petitioner cannot contend that he is not

entitled to pay maintenance to the petitioners at the rate of

Rs.3,000/- each. At the same time, the petitioner fairly

conceded that he is not disputing the quantum of maintenance

awarded to the minor child. He is only aggrieved by the

maintenance awarded to 1st petitioner.

9. In the consideration of the facts and circumstances of

the case and especially the deposition of the respondent that

the wife also needs Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance, I am

of the view that the impugned order does not warrant any R.P.(FC) No.233/2016

interference. There is no illegality or impropriety in the order

passed by the Family Court.

R.P.(FC) No.233/2016 is dismissed.

Sd/-

BASANT BALAJI JUDGE

jjj