Kerala High Court
Mumthaz A.A vs Niyas Mohammed T.K.P on 1 March, 2012
Author: P.Bhavadasan
Bench: P.Bhavadasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2012/11TH PHALGUNA 1933
RPFC.No. 166 of 2011 ( )
-------------------------------------
MC.90/2010 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD
..........
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS:
-------------------------------------------------------
1. MUMTHAZ A.A., AGED 28 YEARS,
W/O.NIYAS MOHAMMED T.K.P., FATHIMA MANZIL
VALIYAPARAMBA P.O., PADANNA KADAPPURAM, CHERUVATHUR
HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
2. SHAHABAZ MOHAMMED T.K.P., AGED 9 YEARS,
(MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND
MUMTHAZ .A.A., AGED 28 YEARS
W/O.NIYAS MOHAMMED T.K.P., FATHIMA MANZIL
VALIYAPARAMBA P.O., PADANNA KADAPPURAM,
CHERUVATHUR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:
-----------------------------------------------
NIYAS MOHAMMED T.K.P., AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O.LATE MOHAMMED KUNHIHAJI, FATHIMA MANZIL
VALIYAPARAMBA P.O., PADANNA KADAPPURAM, CHERUVATHUR
HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN: 671 312.
BY ADV.SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
--- -------------------------------------------------------
R.P.F.C.No.166 of 2011
----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2012
ORDER
Under challenge is the order dated 11/5/2011 in M.C.NO.90 of 2010 on the file of the Family Court, Kasaragod whereby the court below had directed the respondent to pay a maintenance of only Rs.1,500/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.750/- to the 2nd petitioner per month from the date of order.
2. The marriage between the 1st petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 23/07/2000 at the residence of the respondent. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, the 1st petitioner was presented with 50 sovereigns of gold and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was given to the respondent. According to the 1st petitioner, her life at the matrimonial house, after 2 years became miserable. Later, the 1st petitioner was compelled to bring to additional dowry . The respondent used to beat the 1st petitioner mercilessly and on 01/04/2009, the respondent administered R.P.F.C.No.166 of 2011 2 some liquid forcibly on the 1st petitioner and she fell unconscious. She was taken to the hospital also and she was compelled to take separate residence.
3. According to the 1st petitioner, the respondent is bound to maintain them because he is running hotel business and earning a monthly income of Rs.1,00,000/-. He has sufficient income to maintain the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the amounts granted are totally inadequate.
4. The respondent resisted the petition by pointing out that the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the respondent is dissolved and he has no liability to pay maintenance allowance as claimed by her and the 1st petitioner is permanently employed and she can maintain herself.
5. Evidence was adduced by the petitioners, in order to prove the case of the petitioners. 1st petitioner examined herself as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 documents were marked R.P.F.C.No.166 of 2011 3 through her. On the side of the respondent, the respondent himself was examined as RW1 and Ext.B1 document was marked. On appreciation of the evidence, the court below ordered maintenance to the 1st petitioner, a sum of Rs.15,00/- per month and Rs.750/- per month to the 2nd petitioner.
6.Even though, the respondent raised the contention that the 1st petitioner is having her own income to maintain herself, no evidence was produced in this regard. At the same time, the 1st petitioner had produced Ext. A3, R.C. particulars of the motor car owned by the respondent which shows that the respondent has sufficient income and is in affluent circumstances. Though, the respondent raised the contention that he has no sufficient income to maintain the petitioners because he is only a hotel employee and only getting Rs.100/- per day. He has not produced any evidence to prove his claim before the lower court. It has also come out in evidence that the R.P.F.C.No.166 of 2011 4 respondent has married another lady and comfortably living with her. Considering the various aspects, namely, the cost of living, prices of commodities etc, the amount granted are inadequate.
7. In the light of the said facts, the revision petition is allowed by enhancing the maintenance amount payable to the 1st petitioner from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.750/- to Rs.1,000/- to the second petitioner from the date of this order.
This revision petition is disposed as above.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE su