IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 RPFC.No. 242 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.311/2007 of FAMILY COURT OF PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- T.D.GOPALAKRISHNA RAO, S/O.T.B.DURVASAN, AGED 61 YEARS, THEKKEDATHU HOUSE, NEAR AYANI TEMPLE, THRIPUNITHURA, MARADU PO, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONR: --------------- M.HEMAVATHY, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O.MADHAVAN, MADHAVA NIVAS, THUNDAPARAMBU, PALLASSENA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No.242 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009. ORDER This revision is in challenge of order dated 17.3.2009 passed by learned Judge of the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.No.311 of 2007 directing petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month (Rs.50/- per day). Petitioner was aged 60 years and respondent, aged 37 years when the latter claimed maintenance from the former. Their marriage was on 8.8.2005. Respondent alleged that since six months after the marriage petitioner has been subjecting her to physical cruelty and she was sent out from the matrimonial home in August, 2006. Petitioner is a retired officer of the gazetted rank and according to the respondent, getting Rs.5000/- by way of monthly pension. He has landed property and bank deposits from which he is getting Rs.5,000/- per month by way of interest. Petitioner denied the allegation of cruelty and claimed that at the time of marriage respondent suppressed the fact that she is a heart patient and had undergone surgery. She refused to have sex with him. It is also claimed that she was nominated as nominee in his pension papers and thereafter respondent withdrew from his company. Both sides adduced evidence. Learned Judge observed from Ext.D2, copy of letter dated 28.6.2007 accepting nomination of respondent made by the petitioner that even before making her the nominee, she had left him in April, 2007. Learned Judge considered the evidence and accepted the version of respondent RP(FC) No.242/2009 2 regarding neglect and refusal to maintain. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the finding is not correct as that there was an offer to maintain respondent which was not properly considered. 2. It is seen that neither in the objection preferred by petitioner nor when he was in the box he had made mention about that. It is also seen that in the meantime petitioner had issued a notice to the respondent for annulment of marriage on the alleged suppression of heart disease at the time of marriage. He has already filed a petition seeking such a relief. Having done so, it is idle for petitioner to contend that he has made a valid offer to maintain the respondent. I do not find any bona fides or substance in that offer. 3. So far as amount awarded is concerned, leaving apart the case of respondent about income of the petitioner otherwise which ofcourse she could not prove by evidence, it is not disputed that petitioner is a retired officer of the gazetted rank and is getting Rs.5,000/- per month as pension. What is awarded to the respondent aged 37 years in the year 2007 is only Rs.1,500/- per month. Out of the pension amount of Rs.5,000/- petitioner has to spare Rs.1,500/- for his wife. I am not inclined to think that the amount awarded is excessive or RP(FC) No.242/2009 3 beyond the paying capacity of petitioner. There is no reason to interfere in the order under challenge. Revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks