Basheer Kakkengal vs C.H.Sajna

The revision petitioner herein is the respondent in M.C.No.15 of 2010 of the Family Court, Malappuram, brought by his wife and minor children for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner married the first respondent in 1994, and she has been residing separately with the children since July 2000. When the husband neglected to maintain her and the children for years, she brought the claim for maintenance. It is also alleged that the husband has contracted a second marriage, and in the said relationship, he has got two children. The revision petitioner entered appearance before the trial court, and resisted the maintenance claim on the ground that his wife has no reason to live separately. The trial court recorded evidence of both sides. The first claimant examined herself as PW1, and the husband examined himself as RW3. The first claimant's father was examined as PW2, and five other witnesses were examined on the side of the husband also. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claimants, and Ext.B1 to B6 were marked on the side of the husband. Ext.X1 was also marked through a third party.

On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found that the first claimant has sufficient reason to live separately, and that the husband has sufficient means to pay maintenance to his wife and children. Accordingly, the trial court directed the respondent to pay maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs.3,000/-per month, to the first child at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month, and to the second child at the rate of Rs.800/- per month. The Maintenance Claim was disposed of along with O.P.No.247/2010 brought by the wife and children for past maintenance. At the above rate, past maintenance was also awarded for three years by the Family Court. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.12.2010 in M.C.No.15/2010, the husband has come up in revision.

On hearing the learned counsel, and on a perusal of the materials, I find no reason for interference in the order passed by the trial court. The revision petitioner married the first respondent in January 1994, and evidence satisfies the Court that his wife and children have been residing separately since July 2000. The maintenance claim was brought only in 2010. The case of the claimants is that since the separation the revision petitioner has paid only Rs.25,000/- during the last ten years, and he has not cared to maintain them or to support them in life. The case of the revision petitioner is that he had maintained his wife and children till they brought the maintenance claim in 2010. There is nothing to probabilise his case. As regards the right of the wife to live separately and claim maintenance, there cannot be any dispute because the revision petitioner has admittedly contracted a second marriage. In the said wedlock, he has also two children. They are being properly maintained and taken care of by him. When his first wife and children claimed maintenance, he would say that he has not a sufficient means. The second marriage contracted by the husband is sufficient ground for the wife to live separately and claim maintenance. Evidence satisfies the Court that the first child has some ailments. On a consideration of the future medical expenses also, the trial court awarded Rs.2,000/- per month to the first child. This is quite reasonable. What is awarded to the second child is only Rs.800/- per month. This also does not require interference. The revision petitioner is admittedly an employee of a private company. Admittedly he had been abroad for more than fifteen years. He is a driver by profession. There is nothing to show that he has any ailment, or that he is physically disabled. Evidence shows that the wife and children were mercilessly driven out after just six years of matrimony. If at all there was any difference of opinion or discord in matrimony, the husband could have made efforts to solve the disputes and bring his wife and children back.

Instead he contracted a second marriage, and the second wife and children are being very well maintained by him. Such a person cannot find any excuse not to maintain his first wife and children. The two children must have by this time attained majority. As on the date of claim, the first child was aged 13 ½ years, and the second child was aged 10 years. There is nothing to show that the wife has any income or source of her own. The maintenance award was passed in 2010, and it appears that the claimants have not so far sought enhancement under Section 127 Cr.P.C. In the above circumstances, I find that the amount awarded by the trial court is quite reasonable. I find no reason for interference in revision.

In the result, this revision petition is dismissed.