IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 RPFC.NO. 198 OF 2009() ---------------------- MC.329/2007 OF FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- HARIDAS.S,S/O.SUDEVAN,MUKKAM.PO, MUKKAM VIA,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,PIN 673 602, MUKKAM. BY ADV. SRI. NIRMAL.S RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- T.LAKSHMI,D/O.CHATHANKUTTY, MUTHUMANGALAMKANDY HOUSE,PANNIKKODE.PO, KOZHIKODE. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(FC) NO.198 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Petitioner is challenging the order of maintenance awarded in favour of respondent at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. Respondent claimed that petitioner married her on 26.5.1996 in accordance with the customary rites. But no children are born in that wedlock. Respondent has two children in her first marriage and according to her, her first husband is no more and thereafter petitioner married her. She alleged matrimonial cruelty and harassment at the hands of petitioner and demanded maintenance from him. 2. Petitioner denied that there was any valid marriage and claimed that the former husband of the respondent is alive. He also claimed that by fraud and under coercion he happened to enter into a marriage agreement with the respondent. Further contention is that respondent is capable of maintaining herself. Petitioner filed O.P. No.31 of 2008 for dissolution of marriage. Both sides adduced evidence. Court below found in favour of marriage, dismissed O.P. No.31 of 2008 and allowed maintenance directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. Learned counsel contends that marriage of the petitioner with respondent is not proved R.P(FC) No.198 of 2009 -: 2 :- and at any rate respondent has sufficient means to maintain herself. 3. It is disputed that there was a valid marriage between petitioner and respondent on 26.5.1996. Respondent has given evidence as P.W.1 about the marriage and produced Ext.A1, extract of the marriage register. It is admitted by petitioner also that from 26.5.1996 onwards he has been cohabiting with the respondent as husband and wife. On the basis of Ext.A1, evidence of P.W.1 and the fact that parties are living together as man and wife from 26.5.1996 there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of respondent as P.W.1 regarding the marriage. Proceedings for the grant of maintenance is of a summary nature. If petitioner is successful in getting the marriage dissolved as prayed in O.P. No.31 of 2008 it is open to the petitioner to seek cancellation of the order of maintenance under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. So far as the maintenance awarded to the respondent is concerned it is true that petitioner pleaded that respondent is working as a teacher in an Anganwadi but no evidence in that line was brought out. Learned counsel referred me to the deposition of the respondent in some other proceedings between the same parties where respondent is stated to have admitted that she is a Anganwadi R.P(FC) No.198 of 2009 -: 3 :- teacher and that she is getting Rs.1,700/- per month. Learned counsel also submitted from the deposition that for the marriage of her daughter she had arranged about 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments. No evidence is brought out regarding the occupation or income of the respondent. Even assuming that she is earning Rs.1,700/- per month as an Anganwadi teacher what is awarded is only Rs.1,000/- per month. I am not inclined to think, even if it is admitted that she is getting Rs.1,700/- per month otherwise that the maintenance awarded is excessive so as to call for interference. Nor am I inclined to think that the amount awarded is beyond the paying capacity of petitioner. I find that no grounds are made out to interfere with the order impugned. Revision fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv R.P(FC) No.198 of 2009 -: 4 :-