IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 MFA.No. 997 of 2000() --------------------- OS.62/1995 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: ----------- SAJEEV, S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 44 YEARS, KALLUPURATH HOUSE, ORAVAMTHURUTHU MURIYIL, MOOTHAKUNNAM P.O., PARAVOOR TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ SRI. K.P. MAJEED RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: ------------- VRINDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, D/O.KUMARAN, KUNNUKATTIL HOUSE, KARIMPADAM MURIYIL, CHENNAMANGALAM P.O., PARAVOOR TALUK. BY // THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A. NO. 997 OF 2000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Harun-Ul-Rashid, J The defendant in O.S. No.62 of 1995 on the file of the Family Court, Ernakulam is the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved by the decree passed by the court below in favour of the respondent/plaintiff for realisation of an amount of Rs.9,000/- with future interest thereon at 12% from the date of suit towards past maintenance and also for realisation of Rs.750/- per month from him as future maintenance. 2. Before the court below, the plaintiff herself and another witness were examined as PWs.1 and 2 respectively. The defendant was examined as RW.1. The court below, on appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the plaintiff has got any independent source of income. The court below also noticed the fact that the appellant is employed in the Life Insurance Corporation and his basic salary is Rs.4,170/-, that he gets Rs.3,800/- as dearness allowance and Rs.430 as house rent besides the pension he gets from the Army and that after all the deductions, the appellant gets an amount of 2 Rs.4,300/- per month. Considering the evidence on record and other attending circumstances, the court below held that payment of Rs.750/- per month to the plaintiff towards future maintenance will be reasonable and that such an amount is affordable to the appellant/defendant. The court below also found on evidence that the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs.9,000/- towards past maintenance. 3. The findings of the court below that the appellant/defendant is having income and that he is capable of paying maintenance, past and future, to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has no independent source of income for her maintenance are findings recorded on the basis of facts, evidence and other attending circumstances. We find no reason to come to a different conclusion than which is arrived at by the Family Court. We agree with the reasoning and finding of the court below. In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ 3 KURAIN JOSEPH & HAURN-UL-RASHID, J.J M.F.A. NO997/2000 JUDGMENT 14TH JANUARY, 2008