IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 RPFC.NO. 157 OF 2009() ---------------------- MC.462/2008 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- ABDUL RASHEED SAKHAFI, S/O MUHAMMED KUTTY, VELAMPULLI THEKKETHIL HOUSE, KURUVATTOOR, VALLAPPUZHA P.O., VALLAPPUZHA AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------ 1. SHAMEERA, W/O ABDUL RASHEED SAKHAFI, KADUMANNIL HOUSE, IRIMBILIYAM P.O., IRIMBILIYAM AMSOM DESOM, VALANCHERY, TIRUR TALUK. 2. FATHIMATH SANEEYYA(MINOR), D/O ABDUL RASHEED SAKHAFI, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT. 3. FATHIMATH NAFIHA(MINOR), D/O ABDUL RASHEED SAKHAFI, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(FC) NO.157 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009 O R D E R -------------- This revision is in challenge of maintenance awarded to respondent No.1, wife at the rate of Rs,2,000/- per month. Petitioner married respondent No.1 on 11.7.2004. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are born in that wedlock. Respondent No.1 alleged in the petition for maintenance that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty and that petitioner neglected and refused to maintain herself and the children. She claimed that she was assaulted by the petitioner due to which she had to be hospitalized and on the information given by her police registered crime No.367 of 2008 for offence punishable under Section 498A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against petitioner and others. She therefore claimed maintenance from the petitioner. According to her, petitioner is the Khatheeb of a mosque earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He is engaged in administering medicines and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He has also landed properties. He used to visit foreign countries often. Petitioner denied the allegation of ill-treatment and made an offer to maintain respondents. He also denied the allegation regarding his income. Both sides adduced evidence in support of their respective contention. R.P(FC) No.157 of 2009 -: 2 :- Court below observed that there is no offer to take back respondent No.1 and children, petitioner has sufficient means and ordered maintenance to respondents at the rate of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.700/- and Rs.500/- respectively. Order of maintenance to respondent No.1 alone is under challenge in this revision. Learned counsel submitted that in the counter statement there was an offer to take back respondents. He also submitted that as per the salary certificate produced by the petitioner his income is only Rs.3,000/- per month. 2. Assuming that there was an offer to take back respondent No.1 and maintain herself and the children bona fides of that offer has to be doubted. It has come in evidence that alleging assault police has registered a case against petitioner and others. Respondent No.1 gave evidence that due to physical assault she had to undergo hospitalization and treatment. Going by the evidence of respondent No.1 it is seen that petitioner offered to pay maintenance to respondent No.1 at the rate of Rs.700/- per month or even a little more and at the rate of Rs.400/- each to respondent Nos.2 and 3. If really petitioner wanted the company of respondent No.1 he need not have offered maintenance to her which indicated that he is not against respondent No.1 living separately. Moreover, he has not taken R.P(FC) No.157 of 2009 -: 3 :- effective steps to get back the company of respondent No.1 In these circumstances court below is justified in finding that respondent No.1 is entitled to separate residence and maintenance. 3. So far as capacity of petitioner to pay maintenance to respondent No1 is concerned even if it is assumed that salary certificate produced by him mentioned only Rs.3,000/- per month it has come in evidence that he is a religious scholar and used to visit foreign countries often. Evidence shows that he has sufficient means and at any rate he is capable of earning. Maintenance granted to respondent No.1 is Rs.2,000/- per month. She was aged 22 during 2008. I am inclined to think that having regard to the basic needs of a woman aged 22 years Rs.2,000/- per month is not a luxury for her requiring interference by this Court. There is not merit in the revision. It fails and is dismissed. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.4410 of 2009 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv