Muhammed Nayeem vs State Of Kerala

A. Badharudeen, J

This revision petition has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The revision petitioner herein is the respondent in the M.C.No.361/2021 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram and the respondents are the wife and minor child of the petitioner. The revision petitioner impugns order in the above M.C. dated 11.10.2022, whereby the learned Family Court granted Rs.3,500/- to the 2nd respondent with effect from 29.11.2021.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner on admission.

The minor, aged 11 years (during 2021), through his mother had approached the Family Court and sought maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/-. The revision petitioner has been paying Rs.500/- as maintenance and the same is insufficient to maintain the minor.

The  revision  petitioner/respondent  in  M.C.appeared before the Family Court and filed counter statement admitting the marriage. The birth of the 2nd respondent was also admitted. The specific contention was that, the revision petitioner had only occasional job to assist Electricians and he could not pay anything more than Rs.500/-.

The Family Court recorded evidence confined to that of PW1 on the side of the petitioner and RW1 on the side of the respondent and Ext.D1 was also marked.

The Family Court appraised the contentions and finally granted Rs.3,500/- as maintenance to the respondent.

While assailing the order granting maintenance by the Family Court, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that, the marriage between the revision petitioner and the mother of the minor petitioner was divorced, as per Ext.D1 agreement, by way of talaq and as per the agreement Rs.500/- was the amount offered to be given as maintenance to the minor.

Therefore, the amount agreed alone is liable to be paid is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and as such the present petition is without any bonafides.

The Family Court appraised the contention, after holding that it is an undisputed fact that the revision petitioner is the father of the minor. The Family Court also found that the mother had no job or income to maintain the minor. Rs.500/- was agreed as maintenance eleven years ago and the grown up child could not survive by the said amount.

It was observed that, RW1 admitted that he had married another lady and had two children in that marriage. It is in this context, the Family Court granted Rs.3,500/- as maintenance.

In this matter, admittedly, the revision petitioner is a person doing job of assisting electricians. He also has been maintaining the 2nd wife and two children. In such case, a fair income from the job as found by the learned Family Court cannot be found as irrational or illegal. As far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, the Family Court is too liberal to fix the same as Rs.3,500/-, a very meagre amount.

Therefore, the order impugned is perfectly correct and the same does not require any interference at the hand of this Court by exercising the power of revision.

Accordingly, this revision petition fails and is dismissed.