IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 MFA.No. 481 of 2003(F) ---------------------- OP.313/2001 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT --------------------- N.ALSANKUTTY, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. KUNHEETHE, NONDATH HOUSE, PARANKIMOOCHIKAL, CHAPPANANGADI P.O., PONMALA VILLAGE, ERANAND TALUK BY ADVS. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.SMITHA BABU RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. KADAVATHU SUHARA, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O. HYDRU, KADAVATHU HOUSE, OTHUKUNGAL AMSOM, ERINGALOOR, THIROORANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. SAMEERA, (MINOR) AGED 9 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT. BY // THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO. 481 OF 2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. The appellant is the respondent in O.P. No.313 of 2001 on the file of the Family Court, Manjeri. The Original Petition was filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein claiming past maintenance. The court below passed a decree for recovery of Rs.27,750/- as past maintenance with 6% interest from the date of the petition till realilsation. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent/husband has come up in appeal. The parties are referred to as petitioners and respondent as in the Original Petition. 2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 2.9.1991. The second petitioner is the child born in the wedlock. It is the case of the first petitioner/wife that their marital life was short lived and that the respondent/husband had informed her on 24.2.2000 that he had dissolved the marriage by pronouncing talaq. Subsequently, the respondent married another woman. According to the petitioners, the respondent is liable to pay maintenance to them. She claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month for herself and Rs.1,000/- per month for the second petitioner stating that the respondent is working as a medical representative in a company in Saudi Arabia and is earning Rs.50,000/- per M.F.A.NO.481/2003 2 month besides other income from properties. She claimed past maintenance for the period from December, 1998 to February, 2000 amounting to Rs.78,000/-. 3. The respondent filed a counter statement denying the allegations in the Original Petition. He admitted the status of the petitioners as his wife and child. It is contended by him that the first petitioner refused to live with him and left his house without any sufficient cause and, therefore, he was forced to pronounce talaq. He also denied his earnings as alleged in the Original Petition. On the side of the petitioners, the first petitioner and another witness were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and Ext.A1 was marked. The power of attorney holder of the respondent was examined as RW.1. 4. It is an admitted fact that the parties resided together till November, 1999. The respondent admittedly did not pay any amount to the petitioners towards maintenance. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute regarding the liability to pay maintenance to the petitioners. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent informed the first petitioner on 24.2.2000 that he had dissolved the marriage by pronouncing talaq. The trial court noted the fact that separation was two years prior to Ext.A1 letter. The M.F.A.NO.481/2003 3 trial court found that what is stated in Ext.A1 fits in with the case of the first petitioner that the separation had taken place in December, 1998 and hence, the respondent is bound to maintain his wife and child thereafter. 5. Regarding the quantum of maintenance, the court below noticed the fact that the respondent is working abroad and hence fixed a nominal amount of Rs.750/- per month as maintenance to the first petitioner and Rs.500/- per month to the second petitioner. The total amount due towards past maintenance would work out to Rs.27,750/- and the court below granted a decree for the said amount. The circumstances evidence the fact that the respondent was not maintaining the petitioners for the period for which maintenance is claimed. The order passed by the court below in the given circumstances is just and reasonable. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is without any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ M.F.A.NO.481/2003 4 KURIAN JOSEPH & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ. M.F.A.NO. 481/2003 JUDGMENT 14th July, 2008 M.F.A.NO.481/2003 5