Renjith Kumar vs Manjusha

P. Ubaid, J.—The revision petitioner herein challenges the maintenance order obtained by his wife and minor children from the Family Court Vatakara, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the ''Cr.P.C.''). He married the first respondent in November 2006, and two children were born in July 2008. Her grievance is that she had been subjected to mental and physical harassment by her husband, and in February 2012 she was driven out with the children. She further alleges that her husband has not paid anything so far to her as maintenance since the separation.

The revision petitioner entered appearance in the trial court and resisted the claim of his wife and children on the contention that the wife has no reason to live separately, and that he is not capable to pay as claimed by the wife and children.

The trial conducted enquiry in the proceedings and recorded evidence. The wife examined herself as PW1 and the husband examined himself as RW1. His mother was also examined as RW2. No documentary evidence was adduced on either side.

On an appreciation of evidence, the trial court found that the wife''s refusal to join the husband in matrimony is justifiable, and that the husband has sufficient income to maintain his wife and children. Accordingly, the trial court passed orders in M.C. No. 139/2012 on 26/09/2013 directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife @ of Rs. 3000/- per month and to the children @ Rs. 1500/- each per month. The said order is under challenge in this revision.

On hearing the learned counsel I find that the real grievance of the revision petitioner is only regarding the quantum of maintenance. Of course as regards the right of the wife to claim under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the trial court has found that her refusal to live with her husband and join him in matrimony is justifiable. It is found that she has some genuine grievance against her husband that she had no peace of mind in matrimony. She has been residing separately since February 2012. The revision petitioner has no case that he had made payment of maintenance to his wife and children at any time since the separation. He has also no explanation why he did not pay maintenance to them during the period of separation. I find that the first respondent herein is a deserted and neglected lady and she is justified in her refusal to live with the husband.

As on the date of filing of petition the children were aged four years. They are twins. Now they must be aged about seven years. What is granted to the children is Rs. 1500/- each per month. The court must consider the social realities and circumstances regarding the increase in needs and necessities, and also the cost of living which is always on increase. The children will require good amount for their expenses and education. Rs. 1500/- per month granted to the children cannot be said to be excessive. The said order does not require any interference.

Of course it is true that the wife has not adduced satisfactory evidence proving the income of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner was employed in a tyre company. He says that he has lost the job, and now he has no income from any source. The trial court found that he is an able bodied person, and his mother stated during trial that her son is a tyre mechanic. Even a coolie these days will get not less than Rs. 500/- per day. The revision petitioner has not adduced any evidence to show that his wife has any job or income from any source. Anyway in the absence of satisfactory evidence proving the actual job or income of the husband the wife cannot claim huge amount as maintenance.

On a consideration of all the relevant aspects including the probable income of the revision petitioner, I feel that Rs. 2500/- per month will do justice to the 1st respondent as the adequate amount of maintenance required in the present circumstances. Of course, when needs and necessities increase and circumstances change, she can make claim under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. To this effect, the trial court order can be modified, and the revision can be allowed in part.

In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. The trial court order granting maintenance to the children @ Rs. 1500/- each per month is confirmed, but the order in favour of the wife (1st respondent) is hereby modified in revision, and the amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs. 2500/- per month.