IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 RPFC.No. 215 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.689/2008 of FAMILY COURT DATED 16-02-2009 .................... REVN.PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------- FAIZAL, S/O. KASMI, KARAMKUNDIL HOUSE, PAYYOLI, KODINHI P.O., TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JAMES U.K. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS: -------------------------- 1. SUNOOBA, D/O. ABDUL KAREEM, VARIKOTTIL HOUSE, CHERIYAMUNDAM P.O., KURUKKOL, KALPAKANCHERRY. 2. FATHIMA FIDE (MINOR), (MINOR CHILD IS REPRESENTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT MOTHER). THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- R.P.F.C.No.215 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 17th day of July 2009 ORDER Respondents are the wife and children of petitioner. He married respondent No.1 on 19-10-2006. It is not disputed that even before respondents moved the Family Court claiming maintenance, the parties had taken up separate residence. Respondents alleged that petitioner had subjected respondent No.1 to matrimonial cruelty and harassment and unable to bear it she had to withdraw from the company of petitioner along with the child aged 1 year at the time of filing the petition. Petitioner was working abroad and after marriage on 19-10-2006 he returned to his place of employment on 08-01- 2007. Respondent No.1 went to her house on 28-06-2007. She alleged that petitioner neglected and refused to maintain herself and the child. According to her, petitioner is earning Rs.30000/- a month. Petitioner claimed that respondent No.1 had not returned to the matrimonial home and that was without any justification. Ultimately he had to pronounce Talaq on her on 19-07 -2008 while being abroad. He also claimed that Talaq was intimated to the Mahal committee. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and pleaded ignorance about the alleged pronouncement of Talaq. She also spoke to the alleged cruelty and harassment. Since petitioner was abroad, he could not appear in the court below. Hence he contested the case through his R.P.F.C.No.215 of 2009 2 power of attorney holder, RW1. RW2 is his mother. Neither of them were able to say about the alleged pronouncement of Talaq. RW3 is President of the Mahal committee. He claimed that he got a letter (allegedly from the petitioner) referring to the pronouncement of Talaq but, no intimation was given to respondent No.1 about that or even the fact of pronouncement of Talaq recorded in the register of the Mahal committee. Learned Judge of the Family Court observed that the necessary pre-conditions for pronouncement of Talaq are not compiled by the petitioner even if it is pleaded that there was pronouncement of Talaq. It is observed that there was no mediation between the parties before Talaq was allegedly pronounced and that pronouncement of Talaq if any, is not shown to be for any valid reason. Therefore contention of petitioner was not accepted. Having regard to the necessary requirements of a valid pronouncement of Talaq as held by the Supreme Court and considering the facts, circumstances and evidence on record I find no reason to differ from the view taken by learned Judge of the Family Court. That according to the petitioner he has divorced respondent No.1 shows that he does not want the company of respondent No.1. Nor is there any offer to maintain respondents. 2. What remained for consideration is only whether maintenance awarded is excessive and beyond the capacity of R.P.F.C.No.215 of 2009 3 petitioner. “Maintenance includes basic needs such as food, cloth, shelter, medicine .. etc. It is not for a mere biological existence. Evidence shows that petitioner is reasonably placed, financially. It is admitted that petitioner is working abroad. Respondent No.1 claimed he is earning at the rate of Rs.30000/- per month. She must also be in the know of things since herself and petitioner had lived together though, only for a short period. In the light of evidence given by respondent No.1 it was the responsibility of petitioner to prove his actual income by appropriate evidence. Such evidence is not adduced by petitioner. Hence, there is reason to think that petitioner is getting reasonable income from his employment abroad. A sum of Rs.2500/- to respondent No.1 aged 21 years and Rs.1000/- to respondent No.2, child aged 1 year at the time of making the application in the year 2008 cannot be said to be excessive when considering the aggregate amount. It comes only Rs.116/- per day. I am not inclined to think that it is excessive for two person for their livelihood considering their needs and cost of living or, is beyond the capacity of petitioner, to meet. There is no merit in this revision. Revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/