IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 RPFC.No. 189 of 2009() -------------------------------- MC.298/2005 of THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE. .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- P. JOHN CHERIAN, S/O.JOHN, AGED 77, PUTHENPURAKKAL, CHEMBANTHOTTI P.O., SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.JOHNSON MANAYANI RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- SOSAMMA CHERIAN, AGED 68, W/O.JOHN CHERIAN, PUTHENPURAKKAL, NJUTTUCHIRA POST, KOTTAYAM. BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ R.P.F. C. NO. 189 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of the order for payment of maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. It is not disputed that the petitioner married the respondent on 22.1.1962. According to the respondent, she was working as L.P. School Teacher at the time of marriage and resigned on 31.3.1962 as desired by the petitioner. Later, relationship between the parties became strained and on account of the alleged cruelty, respondent is living separately. Respondent alleged that petitioner has illicit connection with other women. She claimed maintenance from the petitioner alleging that he is getting more than Rs.5,000/- per month by way of pension and has landed properties wherefrom he is getting around Rs.10,000/- per month. He has also deposits in bank accounts. Petitioner denied the allegations. Both sides Crl.R.P.No.189/09 2 adduced evidence. Ext.A1 is the copy of a letter admittedly sent by the petitioner to a friend of his where, there is reference to the alleged extra marital connections of the petitioner. Moreover, though no such contention was raised in the counter statement, petitioner when examined as RW1 went to the extent of doubting the paternity of the son born in the wedlock. There is no reason to think that without any reason whatsoever, respondent is living separated from the petitioner. Normally, the attempt of the old lady will be some how, as far as possible, stay with here husband. I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the court below as to the entitlement of the respondent for separate residence and maintenance. 2. There is no evidence to show that the respondent is not able to maintain herself. She is aged 68 years. Petitioner being 77 years. Admittedly, petitioner has landed properties. Learned counsel submits that those properties are in the custody of the respondent. But, there is no acceptable evidence in that line. It is admitted that petitioner is getting Rs.7800/- per month by way of pension, apart from the Crl.R.P.No.189/09 3 income from the properties he own. What is awarded to the respondent is only Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only)per month which cannot be said to be excessive considering the basic needs of a lady aged 68 years. Nor is the amount awarded beyond the paying capacity of the petitioner. No interference is called for. Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE Acd Crl.R.P.No.189/09 4