Asif vs P.V. Jasna And Ors

The revision on hand is filed against an order passed by Family Court, Kozhikode on 30.06.2016 in M.C.No.66 of 2016. M.C was filed by the 1st

respondent seeking for monthly maintenance allowance under Section 125 Cr.P.C for herself and the minor child. The Family Court declined to grant

maintenance to the 1st respondent and fixed a sum of Rs.10,000/- as the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the 2nd respondent. A direction

was also issued to the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance fixed as above to the 2nd respondent from 17.12.2014 onwards. Aggrieved by

the order, the revision on hand is filed seeking to set aside or modify the monthly maintenance allowance awarded as above.

For the sake of clarity, the parties to this revision will hereinafter be referred to as the respondent and the petitioners in accordance with their status

in the M.C. before the Family Court.

Sri. Babu S. Nair has argued that the Family Court failed to appreciate the oral evidence tendered by the respondent that he was ready and willing

to take care of the 2nd petitioner, while finding him entitled to get monthly maintenance allowance and awarding Rs.10,000/- as the sum payable to

him. According to him, the Family Court ought to have found on the basis of the oral evidence of RW1 that there was no neglect from his side to

maintain the 2nd petitioner and dismiss the claim made by the 1st petitioner for maintenance allowance on his behalf.

Sri. Babu S. Nair has also contended that once the mother of the 2nd petitioner was established as employed and earning income, the Family Court

ought to have considered that also while fixing the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the 2nd petitioner. According to him, the Family Court

failed to take the monthly income of the mother into account while fixing Rs.10,000/- in favour of the 2nd petitioner. It was further contended that

though the respondent was established as getting 3,500 Dirhms which is equivalent to Indian currency of Rs.50,000/-, the Family Court overlooked that

evidence while fixing the monthly maintenance allowance which is highly disproportionate and exorbitant.

Respondent had also spoken while adducing evidence that his aged parents are maintained by him, but the Family Court has fixed an exorbitant sum

as the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the 2nd petitioner in utter disregard of that. The learned counsel urged to set aside or to modify the

monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.10,000/- ordered in favour of the 2nd petitioner by the impugned order.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the respondent admittedly was getting 3500 Dirhms and that being a sum equivalent to

Indian currency worth Rs.64,400/-, is a satisfactory income. According to him, the 2nd petitioner, admittedly the son of the respondent is entitled to get

a reasonable sum as monthly maintenance in proportion to the monthly income of the respondent. The Family Court has fixed it as Rs.10,000/-, and

there is no basis for the respondent to raise a plea that it is disproportionate and exorbitant.

It was established before the Family Court by Ext.A11 that the 1st petitioner was employed as a Teacher in a Private School. She has suppressed

the factum of employment in the M.C and taken a contention that she is unable to maintain herself. But, when confronted with Ext.A11, she has

admitted her employment temporarily as a teacher and receipt of Rs.7,000/- as her basic salary. For suppression of that material factum by the 1st

petitioner, she was found disentitled for getting monthly maintenance allowance and accordingly her claim was declined by the Family Court.

The 2nd petitioner was aged only 1½ years at the relevant time when M.C was filed raising the claim for monthly maintenance. Since the

respondent was employed abroad and admittedly receiving 3500 Dirhms monthly and since the contractual nature of employment alleged by him is not

proved, the respondent being an able bodied man is liable to pay a sum proportionate to his admitted monthly income to his child as monthly

maintenance allowance so as to enable him to live in the standard of living of his father. The respondent's admitted monthly income is also sufficient to

meet the maintenance of his mother even after paying the monthly maintenance allowance fixed by the impugned order in favour of the 2nd petitioner.

There is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel that the monthly income of the 1st petitioner was not taken into account while fixing the

monthly maintenance allowance payable to the 2nd petitioner, for the sole reason that the exact monthly income of the 1st petitioner was not proved.

The 1st petitioner has stated that it is only a temporary employment in a Private School and her basic salary is only Rs.7,000/-. The respondent failed

to prove on the contrary. Therefore, being in a temporary employment and earning only Rs.7,000/-, the 1st petitioner will not even be able to maintain

herself. The Family Court has found her disentitled for getting monthly maintenance allowance from the respondent for the sole reason that she has

suppressed the factum of her employment while applying for maintenance and not, for her sufficiency of means to maintain herself.

From the discussions made as above, there is absolutely no reason to uphold the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent and

therefore, the impugned order deserves to be maintained.

The revision fails and is dismissed. The impugned order is maintained.