Kerala High Court
Leebesh vs Sudhina
Author: B. Sudheendra Kumar
Bench: B.Sudheendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2017/30TH PHALGUNA, 1938
RPFC.No. 141 of 2017 ()
------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14-12-2016 IN MC 155/2015 of FAMILY COURT,
VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
---------------------------------
LEEBESH,
AGED 31 YEARS,
S/O.KRISHNAN, PARAKKETTIL HOUSE,
PEROD, IYYAMKODE P.O., VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
SRI.K.N.ABHILASH
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
-------------------------
SUDHINA,
AGED 27 YEARS,
D/O.VASU, KARIAM MAKKOOL HOUSE,
VILATHAPURAM AMSOM, DESOM,
P.O.KUNINGAD, PURAMERI VIA,
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN - 673 503.
THIS REV. PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
STK
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
--------------------------------
R.P.(F.C.) No.141 of 2017
----------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of March, 2017
O R D E R
The petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.155/15 on the files of the Family Court, Vatakara. The court below directed the petitioner to pay Rs.4,000/- per month towards the monthly maintenance to the respondent herein.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The status of the respondent as the wife of the petitioner herein is not disputed. The only grievance of the petitioner in this case is with regard to the quantum of maintenance awarded by the court below. The respondent herein would contend that the petitioner is working abroad, earning more than Rs.30,000/- per month. However, the petitioner herein contended that the petitioner is not having any job or source of income apart from his small job abroad. He is earning only Rs.8,000/- per month from his R.P.(F.C.) No.141 of 2017 -: 2 :- employment abroad.
4. Before the court below, PW1 to PW3 were examined for the respondent herein and RW1 was examined for the petitioner. Exts.P1 and P2 were also marked for the respondent herein.
5. Even though the petitioner herein contended that the petitioner is getting only Rs.8,000/- per month from his job abroad, no material had been produced before the court to prove the same. The court below rightly disbelieved the contention of the petitioner herein that he is getting only an amount of Rs.8000/- per month from his job abroad. The salary certificate of the petitioner herein was also not produced by the petitioner to prove his salary. Admittedly, he is working abroad. Having gone through the evidence, the court below observed that the petitioner herein is expected to get a minimum of Rs.30,000/- per month excluding his life expenses there. The evidence of PW1 would clearly show that she has no job or source of income R.P.(F.C.) No.141 of 2017 -: 3 :- for her livelihood. There is also no material before the court to show that the respondent herein is having any job or source of income for her livelihood.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the status of the parties, the needs of the respondent herein and the probable income of the petitioner, the court below directed the petitioner to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent herein towards her maintenance. Having gone through the relevant inputs, I do not find any reason to hold that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the court below is exorbitant or unreasonable warranting interference by this Court.
In the result, this Revision Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE STK //TRUE COPY// //P.A. TO JUDGE//