Kerala High Court
Parvees T.K. Aged 37 Years vs V.U.Sulhath on 18 September, 2015
Author: P.Ubaid
Bench: P.Ubaid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
FRIDAY,THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/28TH PHALGUNA, 1937
RP(FC).No. 111 of 2016 ()
------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 88/2014 of FAMILY COURT,
THALASSERY DATED 18-09-2015
-------------------------------
PETITIONER(S)COUNTER PETITIONER IN M.C.:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
PARVEES T.K. AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. ASSU, T.K.HOUSE, PARIKKADAVU ROAD
DHARMADAM, THALASSERY,THALASSERY
KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL
RESPONDENT(S)PETITIONER IN M.C:
-------------------------------------------------------
V.U.SULHATH, AGED 28 YEARS
W/O. PARVEES T.K., SUBAIDA MANZIL, VADAKKUMBAD P.O.
THALASSERY-5, KANNUR DIST-670105.
BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
R.AV
P.UBAID, J
--------------------------------
R.P.(FC) NO. 111 OF 2016
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2016
O R D E R
The revision petitioner herein is aggrieved by the maintenance order obtained by his wife from the Family Court, Thalassery under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He married her in May, 2007, and she has been residing separately, since 2013. In 2014, she brought M.C.88/2014 alleging desertion, cruelty and second marriage. The husband entered appearance before the trial court and resisted the wife's claim on the ground that she has no reason to live separately from him and claim maintenance, and that he is not able to pay as claimed by the wife. Thus, practically, he disputed only the quantum of maintenance claimed, and he admitted the alleged second marriage. The trial court recorded evidence on both sides. The wife examined herself as PW1, and the husband examined himself as RW1 Ext.A1 marriage certificate was also proved by the wife. On an appreciation of evidence, the trial court found that the wife is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, and that the husband whose income cannot be R.P.(FC) NO. 111 OF 2016 2 less than Rs.20,000/- per month, is liable to pay maintenance. Accordingly, by order dated 18.09.2015, the trial court directed the revision petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month. The said order is under challenge under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act.
2. On hearing both the parties on admission and on a perusal of the materials, I find no scope or reason to admit the revision to files. The revision petitioner has admitted the second marriage alleged by his wife. She consistently stated in definite terms that she would not join her husband, because he has another wife with him. This is a just ground for a wife to live separately and claim maintenance, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. So, no enquiry is required regarding her right to claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
3. Now the question is whether the quantum of maintenance requires interference. The revision petitioner has been admittedly working abroad. At the time of adducing evidence also, he was employed abroad. The case of the wife is that his monthly income is not less than R.P.(FC) NO. 111 OF 2016 3 Rs.50,000/-. But the husband did not divulge what exactly is his income. The trial court assessed the probable income as Rs.20,000/- per month. I find no reason for interference in this assessment made by the trial court. What is granted as maintenance is only 1/5th of the monthly income. True it is that a house constructed by the revision petitioner is now in the name of the wife. As a husband, it is his liability to provide accommodation to her. Just because the house stands in her name, the amount of maintenance cannot be cut short. In the present circumstances, the lady would require Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) to keep up her standards of living, which she had with her husband. I find that the amount awarded is quite reasonable.
In the result, this revision petition dismissed in limine, without being admitted to files.
sd/-
P.UBAID, JUDGE R.AV //True Copy// PA to Judge