IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931 RPFC.NO. 296 OF 2009() ---------------------- MC.393/2007 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER - RESPONDENT: --------------------------------- SUDHEER, S/O.LATE HASSAN, 30 YEARS, MUNDANPALLATH, PALATHARA GATE, CHERUKUDANGAD, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHEMITHA, D/O.YUSAF, 25 YEARS, THADATHILAKATH, KOOMBAKALLU, MARUTHUR, MELEPATTAMBI, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. MUHAMMED ALSAFITH, MINOR, 8 MONTHS, (REPRESENTED BY MOTHER, THE 1ST RESPONDENT). 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C FOR R1&2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(FC) NO.296 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of August, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Heard both sides. 2. This revision is in challenge of the order passed by the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C. No.393 of 2007 directing petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,250/- to respondent No.1, wife and Rs.750/- to respondent No.2, son per month. It is not disputed that petitioner married respondent No.1 on 17.11.2005 and respondent No.2 is born in that wedlock. Respondents alleged that petitioner subjected respondent No.1 to cruelty and harassment. On 27.11.2006 petitioner assaulted respondent No.1 at a time when she was carrying respondent No.2. Hence she had to withdraw from the company of petitioner. She was sent out of matrimonial home. According to respondent No.1, even after delivery petitioner did not care for them. He neglected and refused to maintain them. It is also contended that petitioner is running a tailoring shop and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Petitioner denied that there was any cruelty or harassment on his part. Respondent No.1 withdrew from his company without any reason. She wanted separate residence as she was not willing to stay with other members of his family including his mother. R.P(FC) No.296 of 2009 -: 2 :- He claimed that he is an employee in a tailoring shop getting only Rs.100/- per day. He has to look after his aged mother as well. Both sides adduced evidence in the court below. Learned Judge found that respondent No.1 has sufficient reason to stay away from petitioner and that the claim of petitioner that he made efforts to get back respondents is not bona fide. 3. So far as that contention is concerned, it is not disputed that in the counter statement there was no offer that petitioner is prepared to maintain the respondents. Court below stated that the counsellor in her report stated that in the conciliation talk petitioner was adamant that he would not have the company of respondents. In the above circumstances I find no reason to interfere with the finding of the court below that the effort allegedly made by petitioner is not bona fide. It has come in evidence and petitioner himself as R.W.1 stated that respondent No.1 had very cordial relationship with the other members in the family. Therefore case of petitioner that respondent No.1 is living away demanding separate residence was not accepted by the court below. I find no reason to differ. Respondent No.1 is entitled to separate residence and maintenance. So far as respondent No.2 is concerned irrespective of the propriety of his R.P(FC) No.296 of 2009 -: 3 :- custody petitioner is bound to maintain respondent No.2 4. What remained for consideration is only whether maintenance awarded is excessive or beyond the reach of petitioner. Respondent No.1 was aged 25 years and respondent No.2, 8 months at the time of filing the petition in the court below. I am not inclined to think taking into account the cost of living and the needs and requirements of respondents that what is awarded to them is excessive. I have no reason to interfere with the maintenance awarded to respondent Nos.1 and 2. 5. Then the question is whether the said amount is beyond the reach of petitioner. Assuming that there is no evidence to show that the tailoring shop belongs to the petitioner it is not disputed that he is a tailor working in that concern. Even according to him he is getting Rs.100/- per day. He did not produce documents to show what exactly is his actual income. Courts below observed that petitioner will get anything not less than Rs.200/- per day and accordingly fixed Rs.5,000/- as his monthly income. Having regard to the tailoring charges payable in these days, I am not inclined to think that finding of learned Judge is erroneous. I also take into account that petitioner is a skilled worker and even a manual labourer gets anything not less R.P(FC) No.296 of 2009 -: 4 :- than Rs.200/- per day. Viewed in that line I find no reason to interfere with the order impugned. There is no merit in the revision petition and it is liable to be dismissed. Revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv