IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2011 / 3RD BHADRA 1933 RPFC.No. 96 of 2011() --------------------- MC.58/2010 of THE FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARA PILLA, MULIYAR POST AND VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS: --------------------------- 1. VALSALA, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.CHUMUNGAN, ARAMANAPADY, KOLATHUR, KOLATHUR VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK 671 374. 2. SUBASHKUMAR, AGED 13 YEARS, S/O.SANTHOSH KUMAR, ARAMANAPADY, KOLATHUR, KOLATHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK 671 374. 3. RUGMA S.KUAMR, AGED 8 YEARS, D/O.SANTHOSH KUMAR, ARAMANAPADY, KOLATHUR, KOLATHUR VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK 671 374. (RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 ARE MINORS AND THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C. NAIR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.(F.C).NO.96 OF 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2011 O R D E R The revision is by the husband in a proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Kasaragod directing him to pay maintenance as fixed, to his wife and two children. Status of the parties to the proceedings is not under dispute, and in the revision, the challenge is confined to the quantum of maintenance fixed and awarded. Whereas the claimants, wife and children, alleged that the revision petitioner/husband maintained illicit relationship with one lady, Sujatha, and, as a mason, he is getting Rs.500/- per day, and, in view of his illicit relationship, as aforesaid, they are living separately from him and are neglected to be maintained by him, the husband contended that the wife/the 1st claimant doing tailoring job is earning Rs.2,000/- per month and, further, he has not neglected R.P.(FC).NO.96/2011 2 to maintain them, disputing the allegation of having relationship with another lady. On the materials placed, the learned Family Court Judge was inclined to accept the case of the complainant that there was neglect by the husband to maintain them, that they have no means for sustenance in life and having an employment as a coolie, can provide maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- to the wife and Rs.750/- each to the two children. The 2nd claimant, son was, then, studying in the 7th standard, and 3rd claimant, the daughter, in 5th standard, was also taken note of by the court in fixing the maintenance as aforesaid to them. Quantum so fixed in awarding maintenance is excessive and unreasonable, is the case of the husband to assail the order of the court below by filing this revision. 2. Though notice given, the respondents/claimants in the case, wife and children, have not entered appearance. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/husband. The amount fixed and awarded as maintenance is beyond the means of of the husband, and as a coolie, he is getting only a meagre R.P.(FC).NO.96/2011 3 income is the submission of the counsel. He suffers from various ailments incapacitating him from doing hard labour is also canvassed contending that treatment records thereof had been produced as Exts.B1 and B2 in the case. Going through the order impugned in the revision, it is seen, that the wife, 1st petitioner, suffered from heart ailments, which, according to the husband, came to his knowledge only when she got pregnant. That circumstance is indicative that she would not be in a position to exert much to find the means for herself and also that of her two children. Maintenance fixed and awarded in the case of the two children, at the rate of Rs.750/- per month, where they are shown to be studying in 7th and 5th standards respectively, no doubt, will not be sufficient to meet even their basic requirements. So much so, the maintenance awarded to the children, by no stretch of imagination, can be considered to be excessive and unreasonable. So far the wife where she is shown to be a heart patient, is the maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs.2,000/- from her husband, revision petitioner, excessive, is the next question to be considered. If the quantum R.P.(FC).NO.96/2011 4 is split up, it is seen that even such maintenance would provide only Rs.70/- per day to that claimant. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the claimants, wife and children, have any separate shelter under their ownership and possession. Not only food for daily sustenance in life but also such other amenities, which are required to live as human being, and more so, taking care of the needs of the two children, the wife is entitled to have from her husband. The learned Judge, Family Court has found that on the materials placed, the case advanced by the claimants that the husband is having an illicit relationship with another lady is acceptable. That indicates not only discarding of the wife and children and non-providing of the maintenance, but of total neglect. When such be the case, the 1st claimant wife has to act as a sole guardian of her children meeting their basic requirements including their studies. In that backdrop, the quantum of maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs.2,000/- from her husband where she is shown to be not getting any income at all and the husband is shown to be a coolie capable of generating reasonable income from his R.P.(FC).NO.96/2011 5 vocation, is not at all excessive, but only just and reasonable. There is no merit in the revision, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp R.P.(FC).NO.96/2011 6