IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 RPFC.No. 233 of 2009 ---------------------- MC.257/2008 of Family Court, Malappuram .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- FAKRUDEEN ALIAS VANIYAPEEDIYAKKAL PAKRUDHEEN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED ALI MASTER VANIYAPEEDIYAKKAL HOUSE, MANGALAM AMSOM AND DESOM, MANGALAM P.O., TIRUR TALUK, REP. BY HIS P/A.HOLDER V.MOHAMMED ALI,S/O.MOHAMMEDKUTTY ALIAS BAVA,AGED 70 YEARS, R/A.VANIYAPEEDIYAKKAL HOUSE, MANGALAM AMSOM AND DESOM, MANAGALAM P O, TIRUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676561 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: -------------------------- 1. UMMUHABEEBA, D/O.ABOOBACKER, AGED 23 YEARS, THAIKKADAN HOUSE, CHENAKKAL AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. FURHAN, AGED 4 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER UMMUHABEEBA, D/O.ABOOBACKER, AGED 23 YEARS, THAIKKADAN HOUSE, CHENAKKAL AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. 3. FARHAN, AGED 2 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER UMMUHABEEBA, D/O.ABOOBACKER, AGED 23 YEARS, THAIKKADAN HOUSE, CHENAKKAL AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- R.P.F.C.No.233 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 03rd day of July 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of order dated 24-10-08 in M.C.No.257 of 2008 of Family Court, Malappuram granting maintenance to respondents, wife aged 23 years and children aged 4 and 2 years, respectively at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month for the wife and Rs.700/- and Rs.500/- respectively per month for the children. Respondents alleged that they have no sufficient means to maintain themselves and that they are neglected by the petitioner. Petitioner is working abroad, according to the respondents earning Rs.60000/- per month. Petitioner contested the petition through his power of attorney holder and denied the various allegations against him. He claimed that respondent No.1 is staying away from him without valid reason and that abroad, he is working in a petrol pump earning Rs.6000/- per month. Learned Judge recorded the evidence of respondents. Power of attorney holder gave evidence on behalf of the petitioner since during the R.P.F.C.No.233 2 time of enquiry also he was working abroad. Power of attorney holder was not able to give satisfactory evidence regarding the employment or income of petitioner. Learned judge found that respondents are entitled to get maintenance. It is contended by learned counsel that respondent No.1 had no right to stay away without sufficient reason and get maintenance. Quantum of maintenance awarded also come under challenge. 2. It has come in evidence that petitioner has divorced his first wife . His second wife committed suicide. Respondent No.1 is his third wire and he has married another lady during the subsistence of his marriage with respondent No.1. Now, when petitioner says that respondent No.1 has no reason to stay away, I am unable to accept that contention. Learned judge has considered the evidence and found that respondent No.1 is entitled to have separate residence and claim maintenance. On the facts and evidence of the case also I find no reason to interfere. 3. Going to the capacity of petitioner to pay maintenance, I R.P.F.C.No.233 3 have observed that his power of attorney holder was not able to give satisfactory evidence regarding his employment or income. It is difficult to think that he is working abroad earning only Rs.6000/- per month. He did not produce any document to show his income. When petitioner could produce relevant documents to reveal his income and that is not done, I am inclined to think that if such documents were produced, that would have been detrimental to him. At any rate that he has married another lady during the subsistence of his third marriage with respondent No.1 with children born in that wedlock indicate that he is capable enough to raise sufficient funds. 4. So far as maintenance awarded to respondent Nos.2 and 3 aged 4 and 2 years is concerned it is just Rs.700/- and Rs.500/- respectively per month which by no stretch of imagination can said to be excessive. To respondent No.1, Rs.3000/- per month is awarded. She was aged 23 years at the time of filing the application. She is entitled to have the same living standard she R.P.F.C.No.233 4 was enjoying while living with the petitioner. Maintenance includes food, shelter, cloth, medicine and all other basic needs of life. I am not inclined to think that Rs.100/- per day for a lady aged 23 years is an exorbitant award. I find no reason to interfere. Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/