IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 399 of 2009() ---- ---------------------- MC.198/2006 of FAMILY COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- ANIL KUMAR B., KETTAKKODE POONJANCODE PARAYAM VILAKOM PUTHEN VEEDU, KATTAKKADA, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS / PETITIONERS -------------------------------------------- 1. RENJINI, VANDANNOOR VEEDU, TC 11/1775, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. AKHIL RAJ (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER, 1ST RESPONDENT -DO- -DO- ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A FOR R1-R2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------------------- R.P.F.C. NO. 399 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T This revision is preferred by the respondent in M.C.No.198/2006 against the order of maintenance passed in favour of the child and the wife at the rate of Rs.1,500/- each. The challenge is made only against the award of maintenance of the wife on the ground that she is having sufficient income for her maintenance therefore, she does not satisfy the requirement under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Unfortunately, the couple who are separated by a decree of divorce are the parties before the court. The husband would contended that there is a two storied building which has been rented out by the wife and she is deriving income from therein and therefore, it is sufficient for her maintenance. When the wife was examined it has been recorded that she has at least admitted that the ground floor of the building is rented out on a monthly rent of Rs.2,800/-. The husband produced Ext.B1 and B2 rent receipts which would indicate that both the floors were being let out by them. If both the floors are let out and sufficient income is derived by the wife then naturally she may not be entitled to claim any maintenance. At the R.P.F.C. NO. 399 OF 2009 2 same time the wife had deposed before the court that she is repaying the loan amount taken for the construction for the building. If really repayment is made by the wife from the rent received there income may not be sufficient and it may be a point that might have to considered by the Family Court. The renting out of a building as well as taking a loan are matters which can be proved by documentary evidence rather than oath against oath. Therefore, I feel the Family Court should have resorted to methodology while finally analysing the question regarding the maintenance of the wife. Therefore, I set aside the order of maintenance passed in favour of the wife and remit the case back to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram for fresh consideration and both the parties are permitted to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and decide the entitlement of the maintenance for the wife in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 26.4.2010. Needless to say the maintenance to the child is sustained. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. pm