IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 Mat.Appeal.No. 81 of 2009(B) --------------------------- OP.727/2001 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT. ------------------------------------ K.VELAPPAN NAIR, T.C.35/1104, SREE VIHAR, CHIRAKULAM ROAD, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH RESPONDENT: PETITIONER --------------- M.JAYALAKSHMI, D/O.MADHAVI AMMA, JAYA VIHAR, KOCHAR ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ********************** Mat.Appeal No.81 of 2009 ********************* Dated this the 1st day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The appellant/husband claims to be aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance awarded in favour of his wife by the Family Court under the impugned order. Shorn of unnecessary details, it can be said that the marital tie is admitted. It is subsisting even now. The spouses are residing separately. The husband was employed as an officer in the Food Corporation of India. There was estrangement between the parties and they have been residing separately for a fairly long period of time. 2. At this juncture, the claimant/wife claimed maintenance @ Rs.1,500/- per mensem. The claim was resisted. It was contended that the wife was not unable to maintain herself. She has sufficient means, it was urged. The husband on the contrary is without any means, he contended. He had retired from service and as per Ext.B10 produced by the husband he was getting only a pension of Rs.561/- per mensem. The wife had properties and income therefrom. There was a house built Mat.Appeal No.81 of 2009 2 in a property belonging to the wife. That building was put up by the husband. That was given on rent by the wife. She was earning an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem as rent. She was getting income from other properties also. In these circumstances, she is not entitled to claim maintenance, it was contended. 3. The claimant/wife examined herself as PW1. DWs 1 to 3 were examined on the side of the husband. Exts.A1 to A11 and Exts.B1 to B10 were marked. 4. The learned Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that the appellant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- per mensem from 06.08.2001, the date of the petition, till 14.10.2008, the date of the impugned order, and thereafter @ Rs.1,500/- per mensem. 5. It is this order which is challenged. Liability for payment of maintenance is not seriously disputed. The dispute raised is about the quantum of maintenance awarded. Of course the appellant contends that the wife has sufficient means and the husband does not have means for sustenance at all. In these circumstances, maintenance should not have been awarded and the amount awarded is at any rate excessive, it is contended. Mat.Appeal No.81 of 2009 3 6. Though it is contended with the help of Exts.B3 and B4 that she has properties in her name, no acceptable evidence whatsoever is tendered to show that the wife gets any income from Exts.B3 and B4 properties. It is seen from Ext.A2 document that item No.2 in Ext.B3 property has been assigned under Ext.A2 by the wife to the husband. The wife has a case that she was compelled and coerced to execute Ext.A2 document and the husband has sold the property assigned in his favour under Exts.A3 to A5 to others. Be that as it may, we need only observe that there is absolutely nothing to show that the wife has income from any property belonging to her. 7. A contention is raised that the wife has rented out the building in a property belonging to her which the appellant had constructed using his funds. The wife asserted that it has not been given on rent and she is residing in that house. The evidence of DW3 relied on by the appellant was disbelieved by the court below and the court found that the wife was residing in the house in her property. The contention that she gets income by letting out that house is not justified, it is argued by the counsel for the respondent. Mat.Appeal No.81 of 2009 4 8. Ext.B10 shows that the husband gets a pension of Rs.561/- per mensem. The husband was employed in the F.C.I and though specific assertions were made that he has received a huge amount by way of terminal benefits when such employment came to an end, the husband has not chosen to explain the details of the amount received. Income from the proceeds of the properties sold is also not explained by the husband. 9. It is, in these circumstances, that the court below directed payment of an amount of Rs.1,000/- as maintenance from the date of petition to the date of the impugned order and thereafter @ Rs.1,500/- per mensem. From the indications available about the needs of the wife and the means of the husband, we are satisfied that the quantum of maintenance awarded is absolutely fair, just and correct. At any rate, it does not warrant interference in this appeal. 10. In the result, this Mat.Appeal is dismissed. No cost. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/