IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 RPFC.NO. 282 OF 2009() ----------------------------------- MC.487/2007 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER - RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ HYDERALI, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED MOULAVI P., PARAPPUR VEETIL, VILAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, P.O. VILAYOOR, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SUDHEER BABU O., 29 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMEDALI, OTHUKKUMPURATH HOUSE, THIRUVANZHAMKUNNU P.O., ALANELLUR (VIA) MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT(S) - PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------- 1. MARIYAM AGED 34 YEARS, D/O. THOTTASSERI MUHAMMEDKUTTY, PULAMANTHOL AMSOM, PALUR DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, P.O,. PULAMANTHOL. 2. MUAHMMED SAHAD (MINOR), (MINOR RESPONDENT IS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN, MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT) THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(FC) No.282 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009 O R D E R -------------- This revision is in challenge of the order dated 9.1.2008 in M.C. No.487 of 2007 of the Family Court, Malappuram. As per that order petitioner was directed to pay maintenance to his wife and son at the rate of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.800/- respectively, per month. 2. It is not disputed that petitioner married respondent No.1 on 20.1.1994 and respondent No.2 was born in that wedlock. Respondents claimed that petitioner subjected respondent No.1 to cruelty and harassment and neglected and refused to maintain them. Presently petitioner is working abroad earning Rs.30,000/- per month. He has landed properties also from which he is getting Rs.25,000/- per month. Petitioner claimed that respondent No.1 has gone away from him without valid reason. She filed complaint against petitioner and others for offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. He claimed that his salary is Rs.5,500/- per month and does not own any landed properties. He was looking after respondent No.2. Parties adduced evidence in the court below. Learned Judge found that respondent No.1 is entitled to have separate residence and maintenance and directed petitioner to pay maintenance as aforesaid. It is contended that the order is not legal or proper. R.P(FC) No.282 of 2009 -: 2 :- 3. It is not disputed by petitioner also that he has married another lady. That gave respondent No.1 right for separate residence. She has also given evidence regarding cruelty and harassment which the court below accepted and which I find no reason to interfere. So far as respondent No.2 is concerned, he is entitled to get maintenance from petitioner irrespective of the propriety of his custody. He was aged only 11 years at the time of filing the application. Therefore respondents are entitled to get maintenance. 4. It is admitted that petitioner is working abroad. In this revision also he is appearing through his power of attorney holder. He did not produce document to show that his salary is only Rs.5,500/- per month as claimed by him. Petitioner ought to have produced relevant documents to show his income. That has not been done. Moreover, amount awarded in favour of respondent No.1 aged 32 years is only Rs.1,500/- per month and to respondent No.2 aged 11 years is only Rs.800/- per month. The said amounts are not excessive or beyond the reach of petitioner so as to call for interference in revision at the hands of petitioner. There is no merit in the revision and is only to be dismissed. Revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv R.P(FC) No.282 of 2009 -: 3 :- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. =================== CRL. R.P. NO. OF 2000 =================== O R D E R JUNE, 2009