IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2009 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1931 RPFC.NO. 182 OF 2009() ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2008 IN O.P. NO.449 OF 2008, MC 508/2008 AND OP.600/2008 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDET -------------------------------------------------- SAINUL ABID,AGED 25 YEARS,S/O.USMAN, PONNAKKARANTE PURAKKAL,TANUR, KORMMAN KADAPPURAM, TIRUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS AND STATE ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHERIYAKATH HASEENA,KATTILAPALLI MANZIL, MANGALAM AMSOM,KOTTAYI DESOM,TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. HANNA SHERIN, 1 YEARS(MINOR) S/O.SAINUL ABDI,(MINOR RESPONDENT IS REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT) 3. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(FC) NO.182 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of May, 2009 O R D E R -------------- This revision is in challenge of the order of maintenance in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2, wife and son of the petitioner, aged 21 and 2 years respectively, at the time they claimed maintenance from the petitioner. Court below as against the claim of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,500/- respectively per month granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1500/- and Rs.500/- per month to respondents 1 and 2. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that respondent No.1 has no justifiable reason to live apart and claim maintenance and at any rate, maintenance awarded is excessive. It is contended by learned counsel that petitioner had offered to maintain respondents provided they stayed with him. 2. That petitioner married respondent No.1 and that respondent No.2 was born in that wedlock are admitted. Petitioner filed O.P. No.449 of 2008 for restitution of conjugal rights. Respondent No.1, apart from claiming maintenance filed O.P. No.600 of 2008 claiming past maintenance as well. All the petitions were enquired together and disposed of by the Family Court by a common order. Prayer of the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights was R.P(FC) No.182 of 2009 -: 2 :- disallowed. On going through the order it is seen that when examined as R.W.1, petitioner was not even able to say the name of respondent No.2 and when the child was born. It would appear that he gave wrong name of respondent No.2 in the petition he filed. Petitioner sought restitution of conjugal rights only when respondents claimed maintenance. His evidence is that he does not know why respondent is living away from him and that he has not enquired about that. He has not enquired about that to the mediators. Nor has he made any effort to find any remedy for respondent No.1 living separated. On the other hand, respondent No.1 has given evidence that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment. It is difficult to think that as presented by petitioner, respondent No.1 is staying away without any reason at all. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1. Offer to maintain is without bona fides. From these facts and circumstances court below found that respondent No.1 is living away on account of the cruelty on the part of the petitioner. That being a finding of fact based on evidence there is little reason to interfere. 3. So far as respondent No.2 is concerned, irrespective of propriety of his custody by respondent No.1 petitioner has to maintain him. Notwithstanding that, petitioner is challenging the maintenance R.P(FC) No.182 of 2009 -: 3 :- awarded (Rs.500/- per month) to respondent No.2 who is aged only two or three years. That indicates the attitude of petitioner towards the respondents. 4. Now coming to the quantum of maintenance awarded, petitioner is a fisherman. Court below found that a fisherman will get Rs.300/- per day considering the present day labour charges. Petitioner is an able bodied man capable of earning. That assessment cannot be said to be illegal or unwarranted. Total amount awarded by the court below to the respondents is only Rs.2,000/- per month. Respondents have to pay for food, clothing, shelter, treatment and such other basic and essential requirements. I am satisfied that the maintenance allowance awarded by the court below is not excessive, nor beyond the capacity of the petitioner requiring interference by this Court. Resultantly, revision fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv