Kerala High Court
T.Murali vs K.R.Kalavathy on 21 January, 2020
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
1
RPFC 128 OF 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 1ST MAGHA, 1941
RPFC.No.128 OF 2008
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 648/2006 DATED 15-12-2007 OF
FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
T.MURALI, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
NJALAYIL, VERAVUR VILLAGE
THALAPPILLI TALUK, THRISUR DISTRICT
RESPONDENT/S:
1 K.R.KALAVATHY, D/O.GOURIYAMMA
GOKULAM VEEDU, CHUDUVALATHUR
SHORNUR VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK
2. DEEPAK, AGED 15 YEARS
S/O.K.R KALAVATHY
- DO-
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 21-01-2020, THE COURT ON 21-01-2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
RPFC 128 OF 2008
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C No.648/2006 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad. The respondents in this revision petition (RP(FC)) were the petitioners in the Maintenance Case (M.C).
2. The respondents filed the M.C against the revision petitioner before the Family Court seeking monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs 2,000/- each, under Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal procedure (Cr.P.C).
3. It was the case of the respondents that they are the wife and son of the revision petitioner. They contended that the revision petitioner was formerly in military service. After his retirement, he used to quarrel with the first respondent and assaulted her. Finally, the revision petitioner deserted the respondents in September, 2005, and, thereafter, he has willfully refused to maintain the respondents. The 3 RPFC 128 OF 2008 revision petitioner is getting a monthly pension of Rs 5,000/-. In addition to the above income, he is also working in A.C.C cement factory at Coimbatore and is getting a monthly salary of Rs 3,000/-.
4. The M.C was resisted by the revision petitioner, who filed a counter statement denying the assertions in the M.C. It was the case of the revision petitioner that the first respondent always wanted to stay away from him. She deserted the revision petitioner without any sufficient cause or reason. Therefore, she is dis-entitled to claim maintenance from the revision petitioner.
5. The first respondent was examined as PW1 and the revision petitioner was examined as RW1.
6. The Family Court after considering the pleadings and evidence on record, directed the revision petitioner to pay Rs 1,500/- to the first respondent and Rs 1,250/- to the second respondent as monthly maintenance.
7. It is challenging the above order passed by 4 RPFC 128 OF 2008 the Family Court that the RP(FC) is filed.
8. This RP(FC) was filed as early as on 26.3.2008. Even though the revision petitioner was directed to take steps to serve notice on the respondents, no steps is seen taken. Subsequently, it was informed to this Court that the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is no more. Hence, notice was ordered directly to the revision petitioner.
9. The Registry, by letter dated 15.11.2018 informed the revision petitioner about the pendency of the case. Though the letter was served on the revision petitioner, there is no appearance/representation for him. Again this Court by order dated 8.1.2020 directed this RP(FC) to be posted to today for disposal. Despite repeated directions and notice being issued to the revision petitioner, there is no representation/appearance. Hence, it is presumed that the revision petitioner is no longer desirous of prosecuting the RP(FC). Accordingly, this RP(FC) is 5 RPFC 128 OF 2008 being disposed on merits.
10. On going through the pleadings and evidence on record, and the impugned order, it is seen that the Family Court has meticulously considered the pleadings and evidence on record. The Family Court found that the revision petitioner has not disputed the marriage as well as the paternity of the second respondent. It was also found that there was no bona fides on the part of revision petitioner to resume cohabitation. Even though the revision petitioner had stated that he is ready to resume cohabitation with the first respondent, it was found that he filed a petition for dissolution of his marriage with the first respondent. The Family Court also found that the revision petitioner is undisputedly a pensioner, who was sufficient means to maintain the respondents 1 and 2.
11. On going through the elaborate findings of the Family Court in the impugned order, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the order 6 RPFC 128 OF 2008 passed by the Family Court warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Sec19(4) of the Family Courts Act read with Sec.401 of Cr.P.C.
12. This RP(FC) is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
Sks/22.1.2020 JUDGE