IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 RPFC.No. 195 of 2009() ---------------------------- AGAINST COMMON ORDER IN MC.391/2008 DATED 14.11.2008 PASSED BY FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- JAMALUDDEEN,AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY,VAZHAYIL (H),THAZHATHAL PADI, ERAMANGALAM P.O.,PONNANI TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.C.KHALID MR.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER MR.T.P.SAJID MS.M.A.SULFIA MS.NAMITHA JYOTHISH RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------ FATHIMA,AGED 28 YEARS,D/O.ABDUTTY, CHEEPANTE (H),PUTHUPONNANI P.O., PONNANI SOUTH,PONNANI TALUK. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C.NO. 195 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009 ORDER The husband against whom an order for payment of maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month has been passed has come up in revision. It is not disputed that petitioner married the respondent on 23.11.2000. Respondent alleged that she was subjected to matrimonial cruelty and harassment and ultimately left at her paternal home on 13.1.2001. Petitioner neglected and refused to maintain her. She therefore claimed maintenance from the petitioner alleging that he has sufficient means. Petitioner denied that he subjected the respondent to cruelty. He claimed that on 15.2.2008, he divorced the respondent by pronouncing ‘talaq’. Court below held that there is no evidence to show that there was any legal or proper pronouncement of ‘talaq’ as Ext.X2, the letter said to be sent by the petitioner to the mahal committee informing about the alleged divorce was not even signed by him and no information was given to the respondent about the alleged R.P.(FC)No.195/09 2 pronouncement of ‘talaq’. The court found that respondent is entitled to separate resident and maintenance. 2. As regards capacity of the petitioner to pay maintenance is concerned, court below observed that even if petitioner is taken a cooli by occupation as claimed by him, he is able bodied and is capable of earning at least Rs.250/- per day. It has come out in evidence that petitioner is engaged in the business of renting motor cycles and owned four motor bikes. Even according to him, he gets rent at the rate of Rs.125/- per day per motor bike. It has also come in evidence that he has business at Chennai and owned 40 cents of land. These findings do not require interference in revision. 3. It is contended by learned counsel that petitioner has divorced the respondent by pronouncing talaq. But learned counsel did not dispute that Ext.X2, said to be sent by the petitioner to the Mahal Committee did not contain his signature. There is no evidence to show that the alleged pronouncement of ‘talaq’ was intimated to the respondent. It is in these circumstances that court below found against the plea of divorce by 'talaq'. That finding rested on a proper appreciation of evidence and required no interference in R.P.(FC)No.195/09 3 revision. 4. Amount awarded to the respondent is only Rs.2,000/- per month. She was aged 28 years at the time of the application. I am not inclined to think that Rs.2,000/- per month awarded to respondent aged 28 years is a luxury. It takes care of only her basic needs and requirements. No interference is called for. Revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE Acd R.P.(FC)No.195/09 4