Kerala High Court
Mohammed Musthafa vs Rashida Farsana on 11 June, 2015
Author: P.Ubaid
Bench: P.Ubaid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/27TH PHALGUNA, 1937
RP(FC).No. 106 of 2016 ()
------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 521/2013 of FAMILYCOURT, TIRUR
DATED 11-06-2015
--------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT IN THE M.C.:
----------------------------------------------------------------
MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA, AGED 30 YEARS
S/O.MOIDEEN, NEYATHUR HOUSE, P.O.VALAKULAM,
KOZHICHENA-676508, TANUR TALUK.
BY ADV. SMT.N.DEEPA
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS IN THE M.C.:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. RASHIDA FARSANA, AGED 24 YEARS
D/O.MOOSA, KUZHIKATTIL HOUSE, RAHMANIA NAGAR,
VALAKKULAM P.O- 676508, TANUR TALUK.
2. FATHIMA NUSHA (MINOR) AGED 4 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, RASHIDA FARSANA, -DO-.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR
R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH (MANJERI)
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.AV
P.UBAID, J
--------------------------------
R.P.(F.C) 106 OF 2016
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of March, 2016
O R D E R
The revision petitioner herein is aggrieved by a maintenance order obtained by his wife and child from the Family Court, Tirur, under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
2. The marriage was solemnised on 20.08.2009 and the child was born on 04.05.2010. Alleging desertion since 25.11.2012, the wife brought claim as M.C.No.521/2013. The respondent entered appearance and resisted the claim on the contention that he does not have that much income as claimed by the wife, and that the wife is not entitled to claim maintenance. He also denied the allegations of cruelty.
3. The trial court recorded evidence on both sides. The wife examined herself as PW1, and the husband examined himself as RW1. The wife also proved Exts.A1 and A2 documents. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found that the wife is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, and that the R.P.(F.C) 106 OF 2016 2 respondent has sufficient means to maintain his wife and child. Accordingly, by order dated 14.06.2015, the trial court directed the revision petitioner to pay maintenance to the wife @ Rs.4000/- per month and to the child @ Rs.2000/- per month. The husband is before this court in revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Court's Act, being aggrieved by the maintenance order.
4. On hearing the learned counsel and on a perusal of the materials, I find that the grievance of the revision petitioner is prominently regarding the quantum of maintenance awarded to the wife. It appears that he does not have any grievance regarding the amount awarded to the child. The case of the wife is that her husband is employed abroad, and has sufficient income. But the husband's case is that he was abroad for some time, and now he is plying an auto rickshaw here. It has come out in evidence that the husband has an auto rickshaw of his own. No doubt, it is his source of income. The husband has denied stoutly, that he is employed abroad now. Any way, there is nothing to show that the husband has any definite source of income except an auto rickshaw. As R.P.(F.C) 106 OF 2016 3 regards the right of the wife to claim maintenance there cannot be doubt or dispute, because even according to the husband, she is a quarrelsome lady. It is true that the case of cruelty stands not satisfactorily and effectively proved. But the husband has not made any offer to take her back, and his case is that she is a quarrelsome lady, who cannot maintain a happy matrimony. In such a situation, there cannot be any dispute regarding her right to claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C, as a neglected wife. In the absence of any definite evidence proving a definite source of income, I feel the necessity of some slight modification in the amount of maintenance awarded to the wife. I feel that Rs.3000/- per month will do justice to the wife. This is subject to enhancement under Section 127 Cr.P.C as and when circumstances change.
In the result, the RP(FC) is allowed in part to the very limited extent of modifying the maintenance awarded to the first respondent herein, that the amount of maintenance payable to her by the revision petitioner under the impugned order shall be Rs.3000/- per month, payable from the date of claim as ordered by the trial R.P.(F.C) 106 OF 2016 4 court. As regards the child, the maintenance award stands confirmed.
sd/-
P.UBAID, JUDGE R.AV //True Copy// PA to Judge