Kerala High Court
Sunilkumar vs Seeersha on 3 August, 2017
Author: B. Sudheendra Kumar
Bench: B.Sudheendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2017/12TH SRAVANA, 1939
RPFC.No. 133 of 2015 ()
------------------------
MC 370/2011 of FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
-----------------------------------------------------
SUNILKUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS,
S/O.VELAYUDHAN,CHOOLAYIL HOUSE,
KADAVANAD.P.O,POONNANI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
THANKA,W/O.VELAYUDHAN,AGE 67 YEARS,RESIDING AT-DO- -DO-
BY ADVS.SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.)
SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH
SRI.SAJU.S.A
SMT.MEENA.A.
SRI.K.C.KIRAN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
--------------------------------------
1. SEEERSHA,AGED 26 YEARS,
D/O.SASI,VADAKKEPURAKKAL HOUSE,
P.O.KANIPPAYYUR,KUNNAMKULAM,PIN-680517.
2. SAHASRA, AGED 3 YEARS,
D/O.SEERSHA,(MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN
MOTHER IST RESPONDENT).
R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 03-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
STK
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
--------------------------------
R.P.(F.C.) No.133 of 2015
----------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2017
O R D E R
The revision petitioner was directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the first respondent and Rs.2500/- to the second respondent towards their monthly maintenance.
2. Heard.
3. The status of the first respondent as the wife and the second respondent as the minor daughter of the revision petitioner is not disputed.
4. The only challenge in this revision petition is the quantum of maintenance awarded by the court below.
5. The respondent would contend that the revision petitioner is employed abroad drawing Rs.2,00,000/- per month as his salary. The revision petitioner on the other hand would contend that he is working abroad in a company as a denter drawing only Rs.13,112/- per month. The first R.P.(F.C.) No.133 of 2015 -: 2 :- respondent and another witness were examined to prove the case of the respondents. On the side of the revision petitioner, RW1 was examined. RW1 is the mother of the revision petitioner, who was examined before the court for the reason that the revision petitioner was working abroad.
6. The court below did not accept the contention of the respondents that the revision petitioner is getting Rs.2,00,000/- per month as salary from his job, as the respondents did not produce any document to substantiate the same. The court below also disbelieved the contention of the revision petitioner and the evidence of RW1 that the revision petitioner is getting only an amount of Rs.13,112/- as salary per month. The court below observed that even a coolie in Thrissur would get Rs.600/- to Rs.700/- per day and in such a circumstance, a skilled worker like a denter would get more amount in Kerala than a coolie worker. Having gone through the relevant inputs, I do not find anything R.P.(F.C.) No.133 of 2015 -: 3 :- wrong in the said observation of the court below.
7. The first respondent was previously employed in a Post Office on temporary basis. The first respondent is not at present employed. It is true that the first respondent is a qualified person. The second respondent is the minor daughter of petitioner, who needs money for her education, food, clothing and other welfare activities. The second respondent is presently aged five years. There is absolutely no evidence to controvert the evidence of PW1 that PW1 is not having any job or source of income for her livelihood. The court below after taking into consideration of the status of the parties, the probable income of the revision petitioner and the needs of the respondents, directed the revision petitioner to pay maintenance as directed above. Having gone though the relevant inputs, I do not find anything to hold that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the court below was exorbitant or unreasonable warranting R.P.(F.C.) No.133 of 2015 -: 4 :- interference by this Court.
8. In the result, this Revision Petition stands dismissed.
The revision petitioner is granted two months to pay the entire arrears of maintenance, if any.
Sd/-
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE STK //TRUE COPY// //P.A. TO JUDGE//