Kerala High Court
Fairooz K.G vs Benazeer V.K on 22 January, 2020
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
1
RPFC 317 OF 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 2ND MAGHA, 1941
RPFC.No.317 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 289/2012 OF FAMILY
COURT,KOZHIKODE DATED 29.5.2015
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
FAIROOZ K.G., AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.POCKER, CHAVALERI THAZHEKUNIYIL HOUSE, PURAMERI
P O, NADAPURAM 673503
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.A.CHACKO
SMT.C.M.CHARISMA
SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER
RESPONDENT/S:
1 BENAZEER V.K., AGED 26 YEARS
D/O.SALEEM POTANCHERI, CHEROOPPA MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT 673666
2 RASHIN FAIROOZ, MINOR
AGED 7 YEARS
D/O.FAIROOZ, POTANCHERI, CHEROOPPA, MAVOOR,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS RESPONDENT
673666
3 RISAL MUHAMMED, MINOR
AGED 4 YEARS
S/O.FAIROOZ, POTANCHERI, CHEROOPPA, MAVOOR,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS RESPONDENT
673666
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.AJITH KUMAR
R1 BY ADV. SMT.M.MANJU
R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 22.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
RPFC 317 OF 2015
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C No.289/2012 on the file of the Family Court, Kozhikode. The respondents in this revision petition (RP(FC)) were the petitioners in the Maintenance Case (M.C).
2. The respondents filed the M.C, inter alia, contending as follows: The marriage between the first respondent and the revision petitioner was solemnised on 23.4.2007. The respondents 2 and 3 are the children born in their wedlock. The revision petitioner is a drug addict and an alchoholic. He subjected the first respondent to severe matrimonial cruelty. He was treated at De-addiction Centre. However, on 22.8.2012, he subjected the first respondent to severe physical cruelty and ousted her from the matrimonial home. The first respondent's mother took her back to 3 RPFC 317 OF 2015 parental home. The revision petitioner is doing hotel business and he is getting a monthly income of Rs 60,000/-. In addition to the above income, he is also getting Rs 20,000/- per month from his landed properties. The respondents have no means to sustain themselves. The revision petitioner has willfully refused to maintain them. Thus, they sought a monthly amount of Rs 8,000/- to the first respondent and Rs 6,000/- each, to the respondents 2 and 3.
3. The revision petitioner resisted the M.C. He filed a counter statement, inter alia, contending as follows: He admitted the marriage as well as the paternity of the children. He denied the assertion that he treated the first respondent matrimonial cruelty. According to him, on 22.8.2012, the respondents left the matrimonial home. He admitted that he was treated at Shalon Divine Centre, Palakkad. Thereafter, he has stopped consuming alcohol. He further 4 RPFC 317 OF 2015 contended that he was only working in a private institution at Mysore as a Tourist Guide and is getting a salary of Rs 6,000/- per month. He further contended that the first respondent has properties of her own, and that she is a B.Tech graduate. Therefore, she could very well take up her avocation and sustain herself. He, however, admitted that he was prepared to take the respondents back to his house. Hence, he prayed that the M.C be dismissed.
4. The first respondent was examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A22 were marked through her. The revision petitioner was examined as RW1.
5. The Family Court after considering the pleadings and evidence on record, allowed the M.C by directing the revision petitioner to pay a monthly amount of Rs 2,500/- each to the respondents, from the date of filing of the M.C.
6. It is challenging the above order that this 5 RPFC 317 OF 2015 RP(FC) is filed.
7. Heard Smt.C.M.Charisma, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt.M.Manju, the learned counsel for the respondents.
8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that there is no material on record to substantiate that the revision petitioner is getting an income of Rs 60,000/- per month, as alleged by the respondents. She argued that even though the marriage as well as the paternity of the children are admitted, the quantum of maintenance ordered by the Family Court is exorbitant and excessive. The learned counsel further contended that the revision petitioner was always ready and willing to resume cohabitation with the respondents.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents, per contra, contended that the revision petitioner has till date not complied with the interim order dated 6 RPFC 317 OF 2015 9.9.2015 of this Court. The revision petitioner is running a hotel. According to her, for the respondents to live in the same status and standard of living as that of the revision petitioner, the impugned order passed by the Family Court is justifiable. There is no necessity to interfere with the order of the Family Court, passed as early as on 29.5.2015.
10. The marriage as well as the paternity of the children are not disputed by the revision petitioner. The only question that is to be considered in this RP(FC) is whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court to the respondents at the consolidated rate of Rs 7,500/- per month is justifiable and reasonable?
11. The first respondent in her evidence had produced Exts A1 to A22 documents to prove the educational expenses of the children. She also deposed that the revision petitioner was a drug addict and was 7 RPFC 317 OF 2015 treated in a De-addiction Centre. This aspect is not denied by the revision petitioner. In fact, he has in his counter statement admitted that he was treated at De- addiction centre. Subsequently, after the so-called rehabilitation, he claimed that he was ready to resume cohabitation with the respondents. However, he has not taken any steps, so far.
12. It is also seen from the evidence that the revision petitioner has not produced any material to disprove the assertion of the first respondent that he doing business in the hotel industry. Therefore, it is presumed that he has an income of Rs 60,000/- per month as averred by the first respondent. Taking into consideration the income of the revision petitioner, I do not find there is any error in the impugned order passed by the Family Court.
13. In light of the findings of the Family Court, and on a re-appreciation of the pleadings and evidence 8 RPFC 317 OF 2015 on record, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the order passed by the Family Court warranting invocation of revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.19(4) of the Family Courts Act read with Sec.401 of the Code of Criminal procedure.
The RP(FC) is devoid of merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS SKS/23.1.2020 JUDGE