Kerala High Court
Abdul Hameed @ Mohammed Haneef vs Sakeena Banu on 22 June, 2015
Author: K.Harilal
Bench: K.Harilal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2015/1ST ASHADHA, 1937
RPFC.No. 155 of 2011 ( )
-------------------------
MC 62/2010 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
-------------------------------
ABDUL HAMEED @ MOHAMMED HANEEF, AGED 42
YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA, MATTA HOUSE
ICHILANGOD P.O, MANGALPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER :
------------------------
SAKEENA BANU, AGED 26 YEARS,
W/O.ABDUL HAMEED AND D/O.MOHAMMED, MAVINAKATTA
NAKRAJE VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD
TALUK AND DISTRICT 671 121.
BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 22-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
STU
K.HARILAL, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.P.(FC) No.155 of 2011
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ====
Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2015
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.62/2010 on the files of the Family Court, Kasaragod, filed by the respondent herein, who is the wife of the petitioner, claiming maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the respondent, she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner; but the petitioner has neglected to maintain and refused to pay maintenance allowance to her. The respondent has no job or income and she is unable to maintain herself. But, the petitioner is a coconut climber earning 15,000/- per month. He is having landed properties and building getting 10,000/- per month.
2. The revision petitioner filed an objection disputing the marital status of the respondent as his legally wedded R.P.(FC) No.155 of 2011 2 wife. According to him, he married earlier and have six children. He had acquaintance with the father of the respondent while he was working in Dubai and he demanded to marry the respondent. But, the petitioner refused to marry the respondent and thereby, the respondent and her father have been nursing enmity towards him. After considering the rival pleas and evidence let in by both parties, both oral and documentary, the court below directed the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance @ 1,000/- per month. The legality of the entitlement and correctness of the quantum of maintenance allowance are under challenge in this revision petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the marital status of the respondent as legally wedded wife was not proved in evidence. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled to get maintenance allowance R.P.(FC) No.155 of 2011 3 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent advanced arguments to justify the impugned order under challenge.
6. Going by the impugned order, it is seen that the revision petitioner has disputed the marital status of the respondent as legally wedded wife. It is the case of the revision petitioner that the signature shown in Ext.A1 Marriage Certificate is not his signature. But, he has not adduced any evidence to substantiate his contention that the signature is not his signature. Needless to say, the burden is heavy on him to prove that the signature is not his signature. So also, no other positive evidence has been adduced to show that his signature is different from that of Ext.A1. Thus, he miserably failed to prove his contention disputing the marriage. Therefore, the court below can be justified in finding that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner. It follows that she is entitled R.P.(FC) No.155 of 2011 4 to get maintenance allowance from the revision petitioner.
7. Coming to the correctness of the quantum of maintenance allowance, the revision petitioner admitted that he is a coolly worker and is getting only 160/- per day. I find that, even if his contention is admitted as such, he would get more than 4,500/- per month. If that be so, the court below is justified in directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance allowance @ 1,000/- to his wife. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order under challenge.
This revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.HARILAL, JUDGE.
stu //True copy// P.A to Judge