IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 377 of 2006() ---------------------------- OP.414/2005 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------- K.AHAMMED, 60 YEARS, KARADAN HOUSE, NEAR CHINAKKAL PALLI, P.O.TIRURANGADI, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------- V.C.P.KHADEEJA, 50 YEARS, C/O.V.C.P. HUSSAIN, KAKKATTIL VEEDU, ULLANAM NORTH, P.O.ULLANAM, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2009, ALONG WITH RPFC NO.80 OF 2006 & RPFC NO.408 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mat.Appeal No.377 of 2006, R.P.F.C.Nos.80 of 2006 and 408 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant,J The respondent before the court below, the husband is the appellant in these three proceedings before us. The respondent herein is the wife of the appellant. The respondent had staked the claims for past and future maintenance. By separate impugned orders, past maintenance was awarded at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per mensum for 31 months and future maintenance was awarded at the rate of Rs.350/- per mensum. R.P.F.C.No.80/06 is filed against the direction for payment of future maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Mat.A.No.377/06 is filed against the order directing payment of past maintenance. During the pendency of these proceedings, the wife filed a petition and enhancement of maintenance was awarded from Rs.350/- to Rs.700/- per mensum under Section 127 Cr.P.C. That order is challenged in R.P.F.C.No.408 of 2009. 2. Marriage is admitted. That the appellant has married again while the earlier marriage with the claimant herein is in force is also admitted. Thus the liability for payment of Mat.Appeal No.377 of 2006, R.P.F.C.Nos.80/2006 &408/2009 2 maintenance cannot possibly be disputed. What then is the challenge? The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. This is the short point in controversy. 3. So far as the order under Section 125 Cr.P.C is concerned, the direction is to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.350/- per mensum. Subsequently, as per the impugned order under Section 127 Cr.P.C, the same has been enhanced to Rs.700/- per mensum. The claimant/wife is a woman aged about 50 years when the subsequent petition under Section 127Cr.P.C was filed. Adopting any yardstick, it cannot reasonably be held that the amount of maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs.350/- and Rs.700/- per mensum is in any way excessive. That amount is hardly sufficient for a person to keep body and soul together these days. Even assuming that the wife has some property belonging to her, we are satisfied that the quantum of maintenance awarded either originally or as enhanced, does not warrant interference. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the quantum of maintenance fixed under Section 125 and 127 Cr.P.C do not warrant any interference. 4. So far as the claim for past maintenance is concerned, an amount of Rs.2,500/- has been awarded. The court below Mat.Appeal No.377 of 2006, R.P.F.C.Nos.80/2006 &408/2009 3 realistically took note of the circumstance that the appellant was employed abroad for three long decades. Though the appellant had taken up the stand that the wife is having properties, the court took note of the alienation deeds which were produced before court. The short question is whether the amount of Rs.2,500/- per mensum awarded is excessive. In the broad facts and circumstances of this case - taking into consideration particularly the facts that the appellant was employed abroad for a long period of time, was admittedly working as Manager earning income from such employment and that he had voluntarily embraced the responsibility of remarriage, we are satisfied that the amount of Rs.2,500/- per mensum awarded as past maintenance does not also warrant interference. The admitted remarriage, while one was in currency, can admittedly be taken into reckoning as a safe indicia of the assessment of the appellant himself about his own financial affluence. 5. In the result, Mat.A.Nos.377/06 and R.P.F.C.Nos.80/06 and 408/09 are dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr Mat.Appeal No.377 of 2006, R.P.F.C.Nos.80/2006 &408/2009 4 Mat.Appeal No.377 of 2006, R.P.F.C.Nos.80/2006 &408/2009 5 Mat.Appeal No.377 of 2006, R.P.F.C.Nos.80/2006 &408/2009 6 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009