Shihab vs K.V. Subaida And Ors

The revision on hand is filed against an order passed by Family Court, Tirur on 15.09.2015 in M.C.No.793 of 2013. The revision petitioner is the

respondent husband in the M.C.

For the sake of clarity, the parties to this revision will hereinafter be referred to as the respondent and the petitioners in accordance with their status

in the M.C. before the Family Court.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the Family Court has ordered to pay exorbitant sums as maintenance to petitioners 1

to 3. According to him, the amount granted as maintenance is not proportionate to the monthly income of the respondent which is proved by Ext.B2

salary certificate. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the respondent has to maintain his aged mother and therefore, he is not in a position

to pay the sums now stand ordered as maintenance by the impugned order. Accordingly he seeks for modification of the sums directed to be paid as

monthly maintenance to the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that it was proved before the Family Court that the 1st petitioner wife was unemployed and not

having other means of livelihood. According to him, the respondent was employed abroad and admittedly was getting Rs.18,000/- as salary from his

job and therefore, the sums ordered to be paid as monthly maintenance to petitioners, being reasonable does not call for interference.

This Court has gone through the evidence. Eventhough a contention was specifically raised by the 1st petitioner that the respondent was having a

monthly income of Rs.1,00,000/- from his employment as a driver abroad, she failed to adduce any evidence to establish the same. Ext.B2 marked in

evidence by the respondent would establish that he was getting 1200 Dirhams monthly.

Ext.B2 is not an authentic document. Therefore, the Family Court ought not to have taken a view on it's basis that the respondent was having only

1200 Dirhams as salary. In the case on hand, the Family Court has relied on Ext.B2 to hold that the respondent was having only a salary of 1200

Dirhams at the relevant time and it is equivalent to Rs.18,000/-. In the absence of any cogent evidence adduced by the 1st petitioner to establish the

monthly earning of respondent, this Court is inclined to interfere on it's basis that the respondent was having sufficient income to pay maintenance

fixed reasonably by the Family Court.

As per the impugned order against the claim for Rs.6,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.4,000/- as monthly maintenance respectively by petitioners 1 to 3, the

Family Court has ordered to pay monthly maintenance only at the rate of Rs.4,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.2,000/- each to petitioners 2 and 3.

The sums ordered, undoubtedly are reasonable sums and therefore, interference is totally uncalled for.

Revision fails for the reason and is dismissed.