Subramanian vs Kousalya

P. Ubaid, J.—The revision petitioner is aggrieved by an order obtained by is wife (respondent) from the Family Court, Irinjalakuda under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the ''Code''). He married her on 30/05/1976, and the four grown up children born in the wedlock are now with the mother. Alleging neglect and desertion since 2010, the wife filed M.C.No. 261/2012 before the Family Court for maintenance.

The revision petitioner entered appearance in the trial court and resisted the claim on the contention that his wife must be well looked after by her sons who are well settled in life with job and income, that he was in fact driven out by his wife at old age, and that he is willing for a re-union despite the desertion made by his wife.

The trial court conducted an enquiry in the proceedings and recorded evidence. The wife examined herself as PW1 and the husband examined himself as RW1. On an appreciation of the evidence the trial court found that in view of other proceedings brought by the husband for divorce and other reliefs, in a circumstance of desertion and neglect, the wife is entitled to get maintenance. Accordingly, the trial court passed orders in M.C.No. 261/2012 on 16/11/2013 directing the husband to pay maintenance to his wife @Rs.1500/- per month from the date of order. Aggrieved by the said order, the husband has come up in revision.

On hearing the learned counsel and on perusal of the case records, I find that the respondent is in fact entitled for maintenance as a neglected wife. Of course, the marriage was long back in May 1976, and the four grown up children are now with the mother. It has come out in evidence that the three sons are well settled in life with god job and income. The daughter is also happy with her husband. That the children have attractive salary or other source of income, or that the mother is being well maintained by the sons, is not all a ground for the husband to wash his hands off the responsibility to maintain his wife. As on the date of filing of the petition, the wife was aged 61 years and the husband was aged 64 years. The revision petitioner is admittedly a pensioner. He retired form service as a Gazetted Officer. There is nothing to show that the respondent has any income of her own from property or otherwise. That the children have good income, or that the wife is happy and comfortable with the children, is not a ground or excuse for the husband not to pay maintenance to his wife. The court will have to fix some reasonable amount on a consideration of the income of the husband as a pensioner, and also the present circumstances of the wife that she is happy and pleasant with all facilities and amenities with the grown up children who are well settled in life.

It has come out in evidence that the revision petitioner has already initiated proceedings for divorce. In such a situation his plea that he is prepared for re- union will have to be doubted. Any way during trial he did not make any genuine offer to take back his wife. Of course the wife declined the request, and she has her own reasons. Evidence satisfies the court that the revision petitioner has in fact neglected his wife, and that he has not made payment of anything to his wife for the last so many years. I confirm the findings of the trial court that she has reason or excuse to live separately and claim maintenance from her husband.

The quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial court is Rs.1500/- month. As already stated there is nothing to show that the wife has any income of her own. The respondent is admittedly a pensioner, but he did not produce any material to show what exactly is his monthly pension. Admittedly he retired from service as Gazetted Officer. The court will have to consider the needs and necessities of an aged wife in the present social circumstances where cost of living is always on the increase. Of course the court will have to balance these needs and necessities with the husband''s source of income. We can imagine how much a retired Gazetted Officer will get as pension these days. Though the revision petitioner did not produce possible materials on his side to prove his actual income or pension, the trial court considered all relevant aspects and awarded only Rs.1500/- per month. I find no reason or scope for interference in the amount granted by the trial court. The amount is payable from the date of order, and not from the date of petition. I find no infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order, and I find that the revision is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed as merit less.