Ibrahim vs Ayisha

Joseph Francis, J.—The appellant is the respondent/husband in O.P. No. 452 of 2011 on the file of the Family Court, Thalassery. The respondent/wife herein was the petitioner in that Original Petition, which was filed by her claiming past maintenance. The facts of the case are briefly as follows :

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 17.12.1981. After the marriage, they lived together and three children were born to them. The eldest son is aged 23 years. He has completed his studies and is searching for a job. While the petitioner/wife was residing with the respondent, she was subjected to ill treatment and their relationship became strained. The respondent/husband had kicked out the petitioner and her children from his house. The respondent/husband had demanded huge money and landed properties from the parents of the petitioner. Now the petitioner and her children are residing in the parental house of the petitioner. The petitioner/wife has no job or income. The respondent/husband is conducting business at Kasaragod and is getting Rs. 50,000/- per annum from that business. The petitioner is suffering several diseases and she needs Rs. 3,000/- per month for her monthly maintenance. The wife had filed M.C. No. 286 of 2005 before the Family Court, Kannur and that was mediated through counsellors. The respondent agreed to deliver some landed property in favour of the petitioner and children and also agreed to pay Rs. 500/- per month to the youngest child. Accordingly, that MC was closed. But the respondent/husband has not assigned the property or paid any amount. Therefore, the petitioner had again filed M.C. No. 341 of 2009. That petition was posted on 25.10.2010 and since that day was declared as Harthal, she was not able to appear before the Family Court and therefore, that MC was dismissed. Hence, the petitioner/wife claimed Rs. 1,80,000/- towards past maintenance for three years from 10.11.2007 to 10.11.2010 at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month.

The respondent in the Original Petition filed counter, admitting that the petitioner/wife is his legally wedded wife. He had utilized his entire earnings for the welfare of the petitioner and his family members. At present, he has been getting only meagre income from his tailoring shop. That has been apportioned for the maintenance of himself and his family members. The petitioner has been leading a better life than that of the respondent/husband. She has been getting income from her property and also from the property belonging to the respondent/husband. Her only intention is to harass the respondent. Since the petitioner has been taking income from the property of the respondent/husband, she is not entitled to get any amount towards maintenance. The entire averments made in the Petition with regard to the income of the respondent/husband is not correct. He is strangled to maintain himself and his 2nd wife and minor children. The respondent/husband is aged 55 years. He is suffering from various ailments. The wife is getting financial assistance from her son also. She has got a better house and land and she is getting substantial income from the property. The claim made by the wife is exorbitant.

In the Family Court, Thalassery, the petitioner/wife filed a petition u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance against the husband as M.C. No. 93 of 2011. Before the Family Court, O.P. No. 452 of 2011 and M.C. No. 93 of 2011 were jointly tried. PW1 and RW1 were examined and Exts.B1 to B7 were marked. The Family Court, on considering the evidence on record, fixed monthly maintenance at Rs. 1,500/- in both the cases and O.P. No. 452 of 2011 was allowed in part and the respondent/husband was directed to pay past maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the petitioner from 10.11.2007 to 10.11.2010 (Rs. 54,000/- in total). Against that judgment and decree, the respondent/husband filed this Appeal.

When this appeal came up for admission, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is getting only a meagre income and from that income, he has to maintain his second wife and two other children. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the three children born to the respondent/wife have become major and the eldest son is working abroad and that son is maintaining the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Family Court is exorbitant. The parties are Muslims. There is no dispute that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent in the Original Petition took place on 17.12.2981 and they have three children in that wedlock. The eldest son is now aged 23 years and he is working abroad. The youngest child is now studying at Ancharakkandy Engineering College and the daughter got married. When the petitioner was examined as PW1, she deposed that while she was residing with the respondent, she was subjected to ill treatment by the respondent/husband, demanding huge amount and landed property from her parents and that once he had kicked out her and her children from his house, and thereafter, she is residing separately along with her children. There is no dispute that the petitioner and the respondent are residing separately for the last so many years and the respondent/husband had married another woman and he is having two children in that wedlock. A Muslim wife may refuse to live with her husband, who has contracted a second marriage and the Personal Law does not debar the wife to claim maintenance. PW1 deposed that the respondent/husband is conducting business at Kasaragod and is getting Rs. 30,000/- per month and also getting an income of Rs. 50,000/- from his landed property. The respondent/husband produced Exts.B1 to B7 to show that he is a patient and he needs continued treatment. Ext.B6 is the Medical Lab Report showing that the respondent/husband is having blood sugar and Cholesterol. Exts.B4 and B7 are the prescriptions showing that some medicines were prescribed for the respondent/husband. As observed by the Family Court, Exts.B1 to B7 will not show that the respondent/husband is having any serious ailments, which need continuous treatment. It has come out in evidence that the respondent/husband is doing tailoring work. It is true that there is no reliable evidence to ascertain the exact income of the respondent/husband. He has not produced any documents to show his actual income. The petitioner/wife claimed Rs. 3,000/- per month towards maintenance, but, the Family Court granted only Rs. 1,500/- per month as maintenance, considering the cost of living and income of the respondent. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed in limine as it is without any merits. There is no order as to costs. Six months'' time is granted to the appellant to pay off the entire decree amount.