Jijuson vs Simi Mathew

P. Ubaid, J.—The wife of the revision petitioner herein has obtained a maintenance order against him u/s 125 Cr.PC from the Family Court, Malappuram in MC. No. 892/2008. At the time of filing of the petition she was very young, and her age was 25 years. She was married by the revision petitioner on 3.1.2008, but the matrimony did not last long. On the allegations of cruelty and desertion she filed claim u/s 125 Cr.PC. without waiting for involvement by the relatives for a reunion.

The revision petitioner entered appearance and resisted the claim on the contention that his wife has no reason or excuse to live separately, she has job and income. He also denied the allegations of cruelty and desertion.

Both sides adduced oral and documentary evidence during trial. On an appreciation of the evidence the trial court found that the wife is entitled to get separate maintenance, and she does not have any job or income of her own. Accordingly, the trial court directed the revision petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month as per Order dated 14.7.2009 in MC. No. 892/2008.

On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the case records I find that the trial court has come to the right finding that the respondent is entitled to get maintenance u/s 125 Cr.PC because the revision petitioner has not made any offer to take her back and maintain her. The allegation of neglect and desertion stands proved.

Now the main dispute is regarding the quantum of maintenance. On an examination of the entire case records I find no reason to believe that the respondent who is a B.Sc nursing holder, does not have any job. It is true that satisfactory evidence is not there to prove her job or income. Admittedly she is a B.Sc nursing graduate, and she has also admitted that she had worked as a Nurse for some time. In such a situation the court will have to consider the possibility, that a nursing degree holder will not sit idle when there is high demand for such qualified Nurses in the health field. Of course it is true that the revision petitioner did not turn up to adduce any evidence of his own. His mother or his sister cannot legally and effectively prove his actual job. It is for him to say that what he is, what he is not, and what his income is. In the absence of any evidence by the respondent himself, the court will have to accept the case of the wife that her husband is employed abroad, and his income is not less than Rs. 25,000/-. However, considering all the aspects including the job prospects of the wife I feel that the amount of maintenance can be modified slightly. I find that Rs. 4,500/- per month (Rs. 150/- per day) would be the proper and adequate amount of maintenance in the facts and circumstances of this case. I feel that this modification will not cause any hardship to the wife, and it will do some justice to the husband. With this modification this revision can be allowed in part.

In the result, this revision is allowed in part. Accordingly the amount of maintenance granted by the trial court will stand modified as Rs. 4500/- per month, payable by the revision petitioner from the date of filing the petition in MC. No. 892/2008. The amount in arrear shall be deposited in the trial court within six months. The amount, if any, already deposited, can be adjusted towards the amount due as arrear. The revision petitioner can make deposit of the arrear in the trial court in lump or in instalment as he would like, however within six months.