Madhusoodanan P.R. vs Biji

P. Ubaid, J.—The husband is aggrieved by the maintenance order obtained by his wife and minor children from the Family Court, Muvattupuzha in M.C 135 of 2012. What is granted to the wife is 1500/- per month, and the amount granted to the minor children is 1000/- each per month. The first child was aged 13 years as on the date of filing of the petition and the 2nd child was aged 11 years. Now, they are aged 15 years and 13 years respectively. The 1st respondent was married by the revision petitioner in August, 1996 and she has been residing separately since August, 2007. When the husband subjected her to mental and physical harassment, she had to leave the matrimonial home and she continued without any maintenance for years. Only in 2012, she brought claim for maintenance.

The revision petitioner entered appearance and resisted the claim on the contention that his wife has no reason to live separately and claim maintenance, and that she has her own income to maintain herself. The trial court conducted enquiry in the proceedings and recorded oral and documentary evidence. The 1st respondent examined herself as PW1 and the revision petitioner examined himself as RW1. Exts.A1 and A2 were were marked on the side of the revision petitioner. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found that the 1st respondent is a neglected wife who had to leave the matrimonial home due to the harassment made by the revision petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed on 25.6.2013.

The respondents 1 to 3 remained absent in spite of notice given on admission. On hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and on a perusal of the case records, I find no scope for interference in the order passed by the court below. I fail to understand how the first respondent with two grown up children, though minors, can get on with 3500/- per month. The first child is now aged 15 years and the other child is now aged 13 years. They require a good amount for maintenance, and also for pursuing their studies. The wife was aged 36 years on the date of filing of the petition. Such a lady with two grown up children cannot get on with just 3500/- per month. There is absolutely no reason to reduce the amount of maintenance granted to the children. Of course, the husband disputes the right of the wife to get separate maintenance, but, I find on a perusal of the case records that she has been residing separately from her husband for years and a clear case of neglect for years stands well proved.

The next question is whether the husband is in fact physically disabled as he would contend. He produced Ext.B3 certificate to prove that he is disabled, but as discussed by the court below, this is a medical certificate certifying 50% of the temporary disability. It is not known how the disability will prevent him from doing any work for earning for his livelihood. It has come out in evidence that he is a headload worker. Of course, it is true that there is no satisfactory evidence to prove that he has income from properties. Anyway, he is an able bodied person, and now employed as a headload worker. Such a person cannot find any excuse not to pay maintenance to his wife and children at the rate of 3500/- per month. Though he stated that he does not have any self acquired property, it has come out in evidence that there is a family property wherein he has share as a co-owner. The revision petitioner does not explain what exactly is his disability to do any job. Just because he sustained injuries in a motor accident, the Court cannot accept his case that he is permanently disabled. I find no reason for interference in the order passed by the court below granting maintenance to the deserted wife and children. Quantum wise also, there is no scope for interference because we know the present social circumstances and economic circumstances where cost of living is always on the increase. I would make it clear that the amount now granted to the children will, of course, be subject to periodic enhancement or modification under Section 127 of Cr.P.C as and when needs and necessities increase and circumstances change. This applies to the wife also. In the present circumstances, there is no ground for interference in the impugned order.

In the result, this revision petition is dismissed as meritless.