Aneesh.S vs Ayana.S

A. Badharudeen, J

This revision petition has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act.

On notice, the respondents did not appear.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

In this matter, though this Court directed the revision petitioner to deposit arrears of maintenance from 29.11.2019, at the rate of Rs.4,000/- (Rs.2,000/- each) per month, within a period of 30 days, the said interim order not complied, is the submission of the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner.

Coming to the merits of this matter, the revision petitioner admittedly is a person, aged 34 years during 2019 and when the respondents herein pressed for grant of allowance of maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month to the first respondent herein (the wife) and Rs.5,000/- per month to the second respondent herein, the Family Court, in consideration of evidence rendered by PW1, the first respondent and the evidence given by the revision petitioner as RW1, granted a very meager amount of Rs.2,000/- to the first respondent and Rs.3,000/- to the second respondent. Now, the revision petitioner has no interest, even to pay the arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- each per month.

In this matter, during evidence of PW1, the revision petitioner admitted to give maintenance to the second respondent at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month, while refusing to pay maintenance to the wife.

In fact, the contention raised by the respondents that they did not have any means of maintenance, has been established before the trial court and the liability of the revision petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondents also has been established. Since, the respondents herein failed to prove the income of the revision petitioner at Rs.50,000/- per month, the Family Court ordered the above meager sum, as maintenance.

When considering the quantum as to whether the amount of maintenance granted by the Family Court, as per the order impugned, it has to be held that the revision petitioner is a man, aged 34 years during 2019 and therefore, his capacity to earn a reasonable amount by doing some job, is very much there. It might be on this context, the revision petitioner agreed to pay Rs.3,000/- as maintenance to the child. Although the revision petitioner hesitated to pay maintenance to the wife, no reason established to deny maintenance to the wife. Therefore, the grant of meager amount as maintenance, as per the impugned order is very reasonable and the said order does not require any interference. Accordingly, this revision fails and the same is dismissed.

The revision petitioner is directed to deposit the entire arrears within a period of 30 days. On failure to do so, the respondents are at liberty to enforce the order.

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Family Court, for information and compliance.