AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 369 wordsMary Joseph, J
This revision is filed against an order passed by Family Court, Thalassery on 11.12.2020 in M.C. No.279/2019. The revision petitioner is the respondent in the M.C. According to the learned counsel the revision petitioner is ready to pay the monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- stands ordered in favour of the 2nd respondent but, not the amount stands ordered in favour of the 1st respondent.
The contentions raised by the learned counsel were that the 1st petitioner was employed as a pre-primary teacher at Kaitheri L.P. School and has sufficient income to maintain herself. According to him, to establish that aspect he had examined the Headmistress of the L.P. School as RW2. The further contention of the learned counsel was that the revision petitioner is now doing a business and is getting only Rs.10,000/- monthly.
Based on the contentions raised by the revision petitioner as above, this Court has looked into the pleadings of both parties and the evidence adduced by them. It was found admitted by the revision petitioner that he had been working previously with Havells India Limited and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.60,000/- in addition to other allowances. He has further sated that the job was resigned by him and a textile shop was started at Vadakkumpadu, Thalassery. According to him, he is getting only Rs.10,000/- monthly from the said business.
True that RW2 was examined to establish that the petitioner was a pre-primary teacher under her but, the examination turned to the prejudice of the respondent when RW2 denied the factum. The Family Court found it difficult to accept the said version of the revision petitioner in the absence of any materials to establish and observed that a man getting a monthly salary of Rs.60,000/- would never opt to start a business having only income less than that was obtained. Accordingly, the Family Court has ordered Rs.4,000/- each as the monthly maintenance allowance payable to 1st and 2nd petitioners therein. The amount stands ordered in favour of 1st and 2nd petitioners being just and reasonable, this Court is declined to interfere with. The Revision is not deserved to be admitted and therefore, dismissed in limine.