IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 RPFC.No. 232 of 2009() -------------------------- AGAINST ORDER IN MC.249/2008 DATED 2.9.2008 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- KUNHAYAMU, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.UNNEEN, KALLAYI VEEDU, IRINGATTIRI, IRINGATTIRI P.O., KARUVARAKKUNDU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS ------------------------------------ 1. SHAHIDA, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.ABU HAJI, POOKKODAN VEEDU, KANHIPPADI, NEELANCHERY P.O., KARUVARAKKUNDU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. RISHANA, AGED 8 YEARS (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SHAHIDA, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.ABU HAJI, POOKKODAN VEEDU, KANHIPPADI, NEELANCHERY P.O., KARUVARAKKUNDU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. RINSHAD, AGED 1 YEAR (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SHAHIDA, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.ABU HAJI, POOKKODAN VEEDU, KANHIPPADI, NEELANCHERY P.O., KARUVARAKKUNDU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- R.P.F.C.No.232 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 07th day of July 2009 ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner. 2. This revision is in challenge of order dated 02-09-2008 in M.C.No.249 of 2008 directing petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife, aged 26 years and two children, aged 7 and 4 years respectively, at the rate of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.800/- and Rs.300/- respectively per month. It is contended by learned counsel that respondent No.1 has no reason for separate residence and hence she is not entitled to get maintenance. Quantum of maintenance awarded to the respondents is also under challenge. 3. It is not disputed that petitioner married respondent No.1 on 09-05-1999 and that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are born in that wedlock. It is also not disputed that petitioner and respondents are living away from 2007 onwards. Respondents made the claim for maintenance in the year, 2008 alleging that petitioner subjected respondent No.1 to cruelty and neglected and refused to maintain respondents. Petitioner denied that and claimed that respondents are living away without sufficient reason. But he did not make an offer to maintain them even in his counter. Respondent No.1 in her evidence as PW1 stated about her woes. She stated about the cruelty, neglect and refusal to maintain on the side of petitioner. Petitioner gave R.P.F.C.No.232 of 2009 2 evidence as RW1. He admitted that from 2007 onwards his wife and children are living separately but he does not know why they are residing away from him. He has also not enquired about that. But he is sure that they have no reason to stay away. Neglect of the respondents from the part of petitioner is writ large on the conduct of petitioner in that he did not even offer to maintain respondents. Court below has referred to the evidence let in by both sides and held that respondent No.1 has valid reasons to stay away. I am not inclined to think respondent No.1 who has two children aged 4 and 7 years in the wedlock would, for no reason whatsoever severe her ties with her husband and stay out of his protection. Normal conduct of a lady would be to stay with her husband, as far as possible. On going through the order under challenge I find no reason to interfere with the finding regarding entitlement of respondent No.1 for separate residence and maintenance. So far as respondent Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, petitioner is bound to maintain them irrespective of the propriety of their custody. Very fact that petitioner is challenging maintenance awarded to the children at the rate of Rs.800/- and Rs.300/-, respectively per month is also elaquant indication of his indifference to the children. 4. So far as maintenance awarded and the capacity of petitioner to pay the said amount is concerned, he is a head load R.P.F.C.No.232 of 2009 3 worker at Iringattiri bazar. He admitted that loading workers in big bazar (at Kozhikode) will get anything not less than Rs.1000/- a day but of course he denied that at Iringattiri bazar, loading worker will get atleast Rs.500/- a day. It is a matter of common knowledge that in this part of the country, labourers get around Rs.200/- a day. Petitioner is able bodied and hence must be taken as capable as earning. What is awarded to respondent Nos.2 and 3, children aged 7 and 4 years, respectively is just Rs.800/- and Rs.300/-, respectively per month which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be excessive considering the needs of the children. So far as respondent No.1 is concerned, she was aged 26 years when maintenance was claimed and Rs.2,000/- per month was awarded to her. 'Maintenance' includes expenses for food, shelter, cloth, medicine and all other basic needs. Considering the cost of living and the needs of respondent No.1, I am unable to think that Rs.2,000/- per month which is just Rs.66/- a day is an exorbitant award. It is not as if petitioner is incapable paying the amount awarded. I do not find reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/