Raju Chandran vs Latha Sunderswaran

A. Badharudeen, J

This revision petition has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, challenging order in M.C.No.31/2014, dated 26.7.2017, on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad. The revision petitioner is the respondent in the above M.C.

The respondents herein are petitioners 1 to 3 in the above case, who are the wife and children, aged 7 years and 2 years, in the year 2014.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

The respondents herein, who are wife and children of the revision petitioner, knocked the doors of the Family Court, by filing petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the assertion that they did not have means of sufficient maintenance and the revision petitioner herein, who had been working abroad as Accountant and was earning Rs.1,35,000/- per month, is very well capable of maintaining the respondents. Accordingly, they pressed for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- to the first respondent, the wife and Rs.7,500/- each to the respondents 2 and 3.

The revision petitioner filed objection, admitting the status of the parties. Claim regarding gold ornaments and money etc., were denied. According to the revision petitioner, the first respondent had been doing tailoring job and was getting Rs.15,000/- per month.

The Family Court recorded evidence in this matter. The evidence consists of PW1 and Exts.A1 series, RW1, RW2 and Ext.D1, Exts.X1 and X2.

The Family Court appraised the contentions and finally granted Rs.7,500/- to the first respondent herein and Rs.5,000/- each to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that, as of now, the revision petitioner lost his job and therefore, he had no income at all. Therefore, he could not pay the maintenance. He also would submit the first respondent denied to obey the order of this Court to give custody of the minors, while he was on leave.

Whereas, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the revision petitioner had been working as an Accountant abroad and the Family Court directed the revision petitioner to produce his salary certificate, since he contended that he was getting only Rs.20,000/- per month, the revision petitioner did not obey the said direction. In the above circumstances, the Family Court granted the above rate of maintenance.

In this case, in paragraph No.9 of the order, the learned Family Court Judge considered the contention of the respondents regarding the income of the revision petitioner. The same is extracted hereunder:

“According to the petitioners, the respondent is working as a Senior Accountant at Gulf and is getting ₹1,35,000/- per month. But the respondent contended that he is only an accountant and is getting only ₹ 20,000/- per month as net salary and he has to look after his parents. But admittedly his parents are residing with his sister. Even though, the first petitioner contended that the respondent is getting ₹1,35,000/- per month and the respondent contended that he is only getting ₹ 20,000/- per month as net salary, the respondent, RW1 is not ready to produce his salary certificate. I don't understand why he is not ready to produce his salary certificate. So definitely he should have a better salary and to suppress this fact, he is not ready to produce his salary certificate. Though here, there is no evidence to prove that he is getting ₹1,35,000/- per month, it can be noted from his attitude itself, his net income may not be ₹ 20,000/-. So considering the circumstances and status of the parties, I am of view that he is liable to pay ₹ 7,500/- per month to the first petitioner and ₹ 5,000/- each to the second and third petitioners. So this point is answered in favour of the petitioners.”

In this matter, it could be borne out from records that the revision petitioner had been working abroad as a Senior Accountant, but the job is not static. However, it appears that the Family Court granted Rs.7,500/- to the first respondent herein and Rs.5,000/- each to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, as maintenance. Insofar as the maintenance is concerned, I am inclined to reduce the maintenance at Rs.6,500/- to the first respondent herein, while maintaining the maintenance granted at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each to the other respondents.

Accordingly, this revision is allowed and the impugned order is modified, as indicated above.