Sooraj K.R vs Lincy

Mary Joseph, J

This revision is filed challenging the order passed by Family Court, Thrissur on 29.06.2019 in M.C. No.6 of 2018. M.C. was filed by the 1st respondent before the Family Court, Thrissur seeking for monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively for herself and the 2nd respondent who is the minor child born in her wedlock with the revision petitioner. M.C. was tried along with O.P. No.1655 of 2016 seeking for a decree declaring the marriage as null and void and in the alternative, for a decree of divorce.

The averments of the 1st respondent, in the M.C were that the revision petitioner has neglected to maintain herself and the child from August, 2016 onwards, that he was working as a sales executive in a private firm at Ernakulam and was earning around Rs.40,000/- monthly, that she has no means of livelihood. The revision petitioner had filed a detailed objection. The entitlement of the respondents for getting the maintenance allowance as prayed for is denied. It was stated that he was working as a sales man cum dealer of a private company and getting only Rs.10,000/- monthly inclusive of his travel expenses. Accordingly, M.C was sought to be dismissed.

Before the Family Court common evidence was adduced in the Original Petition as well as M.C and it consists of the oral evidence of the 1st respondent as RW1 and two witnesses as RW2 and RW3. Exts.B1 to B6 series were also marked. On the side of the revision petitioner himself and a witness respectively were examined as PW1 and PW2. Exts.X1 to X5 were also marked as court exhibits.

The Family Court has dealt with the contentions in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties and found that respondents are entitled to get maintenance allowance respectively at the rates of Rs.7,000/- and Rs.3,000/- from the date of the petition. Though the 1st respondent has claimed in the petition that the respondent is having a monthly earning of Rs.40,000/-, the respondent has produced the letter of appointment and marked it in evidence as Ext.A13 wherefrom his total annual salary including all allowances is disclosed as Rs.2,10,000/-. It can be inferred from Ext.A13 that the revision petitioner has Rs.17,500/- as monthly salary. The Family Court who had occasion to see the respondent has observed in the impugned order that he is an ablebodied man. The Family Court has also found him as a man with reasonable qualifications. Accordingly, the Family Court has fixed Rs.30,000/- notionally as his income and ordered to pay Rs.7,000/- and Rs.3,000/- as monthly maintenance allowances, in favour of 1st and 2nd respondents.

The 1st respondent is proved as unemployed and devoid of any means of livelihood. Ext.A13 is related to the year 2015 and it shows that the revision petitioner was appointed in Green Ply Industries Ltd. M.C was filed in the year 2018 and the impugned order was passed in the year 2019. The petitioner has not produced any document to apprise the Family Court of his actual monthly income either in 2018 or 2019. Undoubtedly there must have been increase in the monthly income with the passage of 4 years, from 2015. Therefore, the Family Court cannot be found fault with in directing the revision petitioner to pay Rs.7,000/-and Rs.3,000/- respectively to the respondents as the monthly maintenance allowance. The challenge raised against the order will not sustain for the above reasons.

The R.P.(FC) fails and is dismissed.