IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3365 of 2005() ------------------------------ AGAINST ORDER IN CRRP.125/1997 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY DATED 28.12.2004 AGAINST ORDER IN MC.45/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR DATED 3.10.97 .................................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------- K.P.SIDDIQUE, S/O.ABDULLA HAJI, P.O.NARATH, PALLERI DESOM, KANNUR DT. BY ADVS. MR.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE MR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH RESPONDENT(S)/REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.P.RUKHIYA, D/O.MAMMED, RESIDING NEAR PANCHAYATH OFFICE, P.O.NARATH, KANNUR. 2. SHERIF, S/O.P.P.RUKHIYA, RESIDING NEAR PANCHAYATH OFFICE, P.O.NARATH, KANNUR. 3. SHAMAS, D/O.P.P.RUKHIYA, RESIDING NEAR PANCHAYATH OFFICE, P.O.NARATH, KANNUR. ADV. MR.M.V.AMARESAN FOR R1 MR.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.NO.3365 OF 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 ORDER Husband against whom the Sessions Court in revision passed an order for maintenance and in favour of his wife at the rate of Rs.500/- per month has come up in revision challenging the order. Respondent No.1, wife on behalf of herself and respondent Nos. 2 and 3, her children preferred M.C.No.45/1996 claiming maintenance for them alleging that petitioner who has sufficient means neglected and refused to maintain them. Learned magistrate accepted the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.1 has sufficient means and disallowed maintenance to her. Maintenance was awarded to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 at the rate of Rs.350/ each per month. Respondent No.1 challenged the order to the extent it went against her before the learned Sessions Judge. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing both sides, as per order dated 22.12.2004 allowed maintenance to respondent No.1 also at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. It is contended by learned counsel Crl.R.P.No.3365/05 2 for petitioner that respondent No.1 has sufficient means and that she has disposed of large extent of property as seen from Exts.P1 and P2. Counsel for respondent would contend that the properties were disposed of at a time when the parties were living together and that there was civil case between the parties and the sum of Rs.40,000/- obtained by sale as per Ext.P2 has been spent for litigation. 2. I have gone through the copy of the deposition of witnesses given to me by the learned counsel for respondents. It is true that respondent No.1 admitted that her mother had given to her 65 cents which she sold in the year, 1982 and after selling that property she purchased another 54 cents. There was another 2.69 acres belonging to her, purchased in the year 1988 but she claimed that it was a vacant land. She sold that property after 1990 for Rs.40,000/-. She claimed that the said amount had to be spent for meeting the expenses in connection with the litigation between her and the petitioner. Learned Sessions judge observed that it is not the fact of ownership or possession of the property that is relevant but the means of respondent No.1. Learned Sessions Jude also found that there is no evidence to show that respondent Crl.R.P.No.3365/05 3 No.1 is getting any income from the property. Even as per the evidence of respondent No.1, she has disposed of the property much before the claim for maintenance was made. One of those transactions was at a time when the parties lived together. I am inclined to think that there is nothing illegal or irregular in the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge requiring interference with the evidence. Respondent No.1 has no sufficient means to maintain herself. So far as the right of respondent No.1 to stay separately and claim for maintenance is concerned it has come in evidence that petitioner has married another woman who according to respondent No.1 was their made servant. That justified respondent No.1 residing separately. I do not find anything illegal or irregular in the order under challenge requiring interference. This revision petition is therefore dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE Acd Crl.R.P.No.3365/05 4