Sugunan vs Kanakamany

P. Ubaid, J.—The revision petitioner herein is aggrieved by the maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumannoor on 16.5.2006 in M.C. No. 25/2003, granting maintenance to his wife and minor daughter at the rate of just Rs. 500/- each per month. It is seen that revision was filed in 2007, but consideration was unfortunately delayed till this date. The learned Counsel for the respondents complained that the revision petitioner has not so far made payment of any amount. The first respondent was married by the revision petitioner years back, and the child was born on 26.12.1994. The first respondent left the matrimonial home with the child on 2.12.1999, and she has been residing separately with the child ever since the separation. Her grievance is that she had been subjected to extreme acts of mental and physical cruelty, and that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home. She also alleges that her husband has not so far provided anything to her and the child since the separation.

The revision petitioner entered appearance in the trial court and resisted the claim made by his wife and child u/s 125 Cr.P.C., on the contention that his wife has no reason to live separately, and that he is not capable of providing maintenance as claimed by his wife and child.

The trial court conducted enquiry in the proceedings and recorded evidence. The first respondent examined herself as PW1 and the revision petitioner examined himself as CPW1. Exts. P1 to P3 were also marked on the side of the revision petitioner. On an appreciation of the evidence the trial court found that the first respondent has every reason to live separately and claim maintenance, and that the revision petitioner is capable of maintaining his wife and daughter. Accordingly the impugned order was passed by the Family Court.

On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the case records I find no merit in this revision, and I find that this revision is liable to be dismissed. It has come out in evidence that the first respondent could continue in the matrimonial home only for a few years, and she left the matrimonial home when she felt the acts of her husband unbearable. A clear case of neglect or desertion for years stands well proved. There is absolutely nothing to show that the revision petitioner had made payment of anything to his wife since the separation on 2.12.1999. The maintenance claim came only 2003. The revision petitioner has no excuse or explanation why he did not pay anything to his wife and child for years. Thus I find that a clear case of neglect stands well proved. This is sufficient ground for a wife to claim maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C.

As regards the quantum of maintenance the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is a person suffering from chronic bronchitis, and that he cannot pay as ordered by the trial court. There is absolutely no medical material to show that the revision petitioner is not physically alright. The trial court has discussed the evidence adduced by the parties regarding the means of the revision petitioner. It has come out in evidence that he has landed properties and income there from. In the absence of anything to show, that he has any sort of physical ailment, the court will have to consider him as a physically fit person or an able bodied person who can very well provide maintenance to his wife and child. What is ordered by the trial court is just Rs. 500/- per month. No able bodied person can be heard to complain these days, that he cannot pay at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. On the date of filing of the application, the minor daughter was aged 9 years. As on date of consideration of the claim for maintenance, she was studying in the VIth standard. We all know the present day cost of living, and we cannot ignore the needs and necessities of a mother and child in the present social circumstances where cost of living is always on the increase. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the first respondent has her own job and income but such a things are not proved by any material in the trial court. I fail to understand how the respondent, with a grownup child requiring good amount for pursuing studies, can live with just Rs. 1,000/- per month. The amount will have to be enhanced, of course, in appropriate proceedings. I find no scope for interference in the impugned order of the trial court, as regards the right of the first respondent for maintenance, or as regards the quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial court. This revision is liable to be dismissed as merit less.

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