IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 236 of 2007() ---------------------------- OP.1247/2002 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN THE OP: ----------------------------------------- P.A. BAVA, AGED 69, POOVATHUNGAL HOUSE, KUNNATHUKARA, MARAMPILLY P.O. ALUVA, RESIDING AT THEKKEDATH HOUSE,KOORKKANCHERY, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENT: PETITIONER IN THE OP: ------------------------------------------ JAMEELA, AGED 67 YEARS, POOVATHUNGAL HOUSE, KUNNATHUKARA, MARAMPILLY P.O., ALUVA. ADV. SRI.SUBAL J.PAUL THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- Mat.Appeal No.236 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. This appeal is preferred by the appellant against an order passed by the Family Court directing the appellant to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- per mensem from 20.12.1999. An amount of Rs.35,700/- which was paid as per provisional compromise of settlement which did not ultimately fructify was directed to be adjusted towards the amount payable. A charge was created on the property also. 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is admitted. That the appellant has two other wives is also admitted. That the respondent/wife was residing in a property owned by the husband is also conceded. 3. What then is the dispute? The only contention raised before us is that the quantum of maintenance awarded of Rs.750/- per mensem is excessive. The court did not take into consideration the fact that the appellant has two other wives and Mat.A.No.236/07 -2- the respondent/wife is residing in a property belonging to the appellant. 4. Even accepting all the contentions of the appellant, we find no merit in the challenge raised. We shall assume that shelter is taken care of by the house belonging to the husband in which the wife now resides. But, shelter by itself cannot enable her to live and survive. Only an amount of Rs.750/- has been paid for monthly expenses on all other heads, sans shelter. In any view of the matter, we are not persuaded to agree that the quantum fixed by the Family Court warrants interference. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the means of the husband does not justify the direction to pay an amount of Rs.750/- per mensem. We have only the assertions of the husband and wife on oath as PW1 and RW1. Admittedly, the husband has properties. The fact that he has married thrice is certainly an input which can point to the degree of financial affluence, which he enjoys. In any view of the matter, we are not satisfied that the appellate jurisdiction needs or deserves to be invoked to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Mat.A.No.236/07 -3- court in fixing the quantum of maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- per mensem for the 63 year old wife. 6. We find no merit in this appeal. This appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn