IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 57 of 2008() -------------------------------- MC.80/2006 of THE FAMILY COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONERS / PETITIONER --------------------------------------- 1. SEENAMOL ABRAHAM,D/O.K.J.ITTEN RESIDING AT KUNNAPPILLIL HOUSE,MULAPPURAM KARA NEYYASSERI VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA, MULAPPURAM PO. 2. ABIJITH,S/O.SEENAMOL ABRAHAM (MIONOR) REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,SEENAMOL ABRAHAM,D/O.K.J.ITTEN RESIDING AT KUNNAPPILLIL HOUSE,MULAPPURAM KARA NEYYASSERI VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA, MULAPPURAM PO. BY ADV. MR.JOICE GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER -------------------------- SLEEBA THOMAS ,S/O.IPE @ THOMAS MUDIMATTATHIL HOUSE, (MULLACKAL) POTHRIKKA KARA IKKERANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, VIJAYAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, PALAKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VADIYAMPADY,IKKERANADU. BY ADV. MR. MATHEWS K.PHILIP THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2010, ALONG WITH RPFC NO. 393 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ========================== R.P.(F.C) Nos. 393 OF 2007 & 57/2008 ========================== Dated this the 12nd day of March 2010. O R D E R R.P.(FC) No.57/2008 and 393/2007 are preferred against the order passed by the Family Court, Thodupuzha in M.C.No.80/2006. It was an application filed for maintenance by the revision petitioner in R.P.(FC). N0.57/2008 for maintenance of her and her son against the revision petitioner in RP(FC) 393/3007. The court accepted the marital relationship, but declined to grant maintenance to the wife on the ground that she is having substantial income and ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- to the child. It is against that decision both have come up in revision. 2. Now let me first consider about the contention of the first petitioner. The one fact that is admitted is that there was connection between the man and the woman. A karar was entered in to whereby they decided to live R.P.(F.C) Nos. 393 OF 2007 & 57/2008 2 together. The man was abroad in America. It was contended by him that there was no marriage and even if there is a marriage it is invalid for the reason that the first petitioner in the M.C was married to one Geevarghese and therefore, she cannot be a legally wedded wife of him. The Family Court considered the material and found that the marriage between the first petitioner in the M.C and Gheevarghese had ended in divorce by virtue of decree of the Family Court in 2001. The alleged marriage is only in 2002. Then the husband would turn round and contend that he has a wife and three children in America and therefore his marriage with the lady is inadmissible in law and so also she will not get the status of a wife. Here also the Family Court held that except for the averments no materials are placed to show that he had married Leela and that marriage was subsisting when he entered relationship with the first petitioner in the M.C. The Family Court accepted the marriage karar and held that for the limited R.P.(F.C) Nos. 393 OF 2007 & 57/2008 3 purpose of considering the question of maintenance the marriage is established. 3. Now the next question to be considered is regarding the maintenance to the wife. It has come out in evidence that the wife's father did hold 2 ½ acres of rubber estate and on his death it had divided upon his three daughters and the widow. It is contended by the first petitioner in the M.C that only half acre is being tapped and there is no considerable income. The Family court considered the fact that the lady was working as a insurance agent and by virtue of Ext.D2 it is established that she is having a monthly income of at least Rs.1,000/- as it was proved that she was getting only an income of Rs.13,000/- as agent of the Insurance Company. The court also found that there had been some talk between the parties and she had been entrusted with one lakh rupees for her maintenance. It also held that the first petitioner in the M.C did have 37 cents of land with a building thereon. So taking the R.P.(F.C) Nos. 393 OF 2007 & 57/2008 4 cumulative effect of all these materials and documents the court came to the right conclusion that the first petitioner in the maintenance case is capable of looking after herself and therefore she is not entitled to separate maintenance. 4. Now considering contention of the husband. Without any sympathy he had denied the paternity of the child. The parties were sent for DNA test and it was found that the first petitioner in the MC and respondent are the biological mother and father of the child. It is seen from the documents that the lady had given birth to the child after about 8 and half months and a doctor PW2 has been examined who had given the details regarding the probable period of conception and she had also clearly stated that it was a premature delivery in the re-examination and further child was referred to Pediatrician for better treatment. The probabilities also prove that the man had access to the lady and the child is born out of that. Therefore, the finding of the Family Court that the revision petitioner in R.P.(FC) R.P.(F.C) Nos. 393 OF 2007 & 57/2008 5 393/2007 is the father of the child, is correct. 5. Now turning to the quantum. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that only power of attorney holder was available and he could not in let any evidence and is only having an hourly income. Therefore it is contented that the amount of Rs.4,000/- awarded is excessive. A person who is well qualified and well versed in the technical field of computer should not raise such a contention regarding inadequacy of income when he works in U.S.A. He is a person who comes to India once in six months. By any stretch of imagination his contention that he is not at all having income can not be accepted and therefore the amount of Rs.4,000/- considering the status of the man and necessity to bring up the child appears to be reasonable and acceptable. Therefore I decline to interfere with the quantum awarded. So far as the lady's contention for enhancement of maintenance to the child it can be said that the most reasonable maintenance that can be R.P.(F.C) Nos. 393 OF 2007 & 57/2008 6 awarded has been granted by Family Court and therefore, it does not call for any interference. So from the above discussions, I hold that both revision petitions lack merits and therefore, they are dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns