Babu vs Jincy

A. Badharudeen, J

This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act and Sections 397 and 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.112/2014 on the file of the Family Court, Irinjalakuda.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in detail. Though notice was served upon the respondents, nobody appeared.

Facts of the case in brief:

The respondents herein, who are admittedly the wife and minor child of the revision petitioner, had approached the Family Court and claimed allowance of monthly maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- and Rs.8,000/- respectively on the assertion that they did not have any means for survival and the respondent, who had been running a rice mill and had been earning Rs.30,000/- per month, could very well pay maintenance to the petitioners.

The revision petitioner, who is the respondent in the above M.C, filed counter and resisted the contentions. It was contended before the Family Court that the 1st respondent left the matrimonial home along with the minor child without any reason on 19.06.2017. Further, the 1st respondent had been doing tailoring works and had been earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The respondent husband denied the allegation that he had been running a rice mill or deriving Rs.30,000/- per month.

The Family Court recorded evidence. PW1 examined and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked on the side of the respondents herein and the revision petitioner got examined as RW1. Thereafter, the Family Court appraised the evidence and finally granted Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance, for a period of 3 years from the date of filing of the M.C and thereafter @ Rs.7,000/- per month to the 1st respondent herein. Similarly, Rs.3,500/- was granted for a period of 3 years from the date of filing of the M.C to the 2nd respondent herein, the minor child, and thereafter @ Rs.5,000/- per month. While assailing the order, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the order impugned is illegal and the Family Court granted high amounts as maintenance, though nothing established to see the income of the revision petitioner to pay such a higher amount of maintenance. It is also submitted that the Family Court failed to take note of the income of the 1st respondent herein. Therefore, the order impugned requires interference. It is also submitted that the 1st respondent left the company of the revision petitioner without any reason and, therefore, she is not entitled to get maintenance.

While addressing this question, the learned Family Court observed that PW1 had given categoric evidence that the revision petitioner was a drunkard and he always ill-treated the 1st respondent herein, mentally and physically. That apart, the revision petitioner sold and misappropriated the valuables belonged to the 1st respondent herein and he had brutally manhandled PW1, on 15.04.2014 and 19.06.2017. Relying on this evidence, the Family Court found that the 1st respondent herein had been staying away from the matrimonial home for justifiable reasons. It is to be noted that the Family Court observed that after reunion also, the revision petitioner continued brutality against the1st respondent and he did not change, as evident from Ext.P2 medical certificate and Ext.P5 discharge card issued from the Taluk Hospital, Chalakudy, showing discharge of the 1st respondent herein after undergoing inpatient treatment for 3 days. The Family Court also relied on Exts.P6 to P8 series. Criminal case pending as C.C.No.423/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy arose out of the said allegations of cruelty. On an over all evaluation of the evidence relied upon by the learned Family Court Judge, the said finding appears to be justifiable. Hence there is no reason to revisit the said finding.

In so far as the contention raised by the revision petitioner that the 1st respondent herein had been doing tailoring works and had been earning Rs.15,000/- per month, the Family Court negatived the said contention, for want of evidence. Nothing pointed out before this Court also to establish the said contention. Therefore, the said finding also is liable to be confirmed.

Regarding the job and income of the revision petitioner are concerned, PW1 reiterated her contentions in the M.C. RW1 given evidence that property having an extent of 4 cents where the rice mill was situated, was sold away and he had no right over the said mill. But the said contention was not substantiated by evidence, is the finding of the Family Court. PW1 given evidence that the revision petitioner had another 32 cents of property. The revision petitioner contended that he had been doing the job of a driver as of now and he had been getting Rs.8,000/- per month. But during evidence he admitted that he had been getting Rs.500/-per day. The Family Court found that the revision petitioner was an able bodied man and being a driver, he could earn Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/- per month. Therefore, the revision petitioner, who is bound to maintain his wife and minor child, was directed to pay the amounts as per the order impugned, as herein above extracted. In this matter, the medical condition as well as the treatment expenses of the 1st petitioner, education expenses of the minor child, who admittedly studying in St:Antony's School, Chalakkudy with monthly fee of Rs.300/- also were considered by the Family Court. Having considered the finding of the Family Court in the context of fees herein above discussed, it could not be held that the Family Court granted maintenance on evaluation of the evidence and the quantum also is not on higher side. Therefore, the impugned order does not require any interference. Hence, the same is confirmed.

In the result, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.