IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 RPFC.No. 99 of 2007() --------------------- MC.131/2004 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KANNUR. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------------- S. SREEKANDAN NAIR, S/O. P.K.SIVASANKARAN NAIR, KODAKKODI VEEDU, CHEEMENI, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR SRI.G.BIJU RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: --------------------------- 1. P. SOBHANA KUMARI, D/O. PONNAMMA, EASWARA VILASAM VEEDU, ETTUKUKDUKKA (P.O), ALAPPADAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. AMRITHA (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER, P.SOBHANA KUMARI, D/O. PONNAMMA,EASWARA VILASAM VEEDU, ETTUKUDUKKA (P.O), (VIA) ALAPPADAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R1 & R2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC)No. 99 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2008 ORDER The petitioner in this RP(FC) assails an order passed under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/- and Rs.600/- per mensem respectively to the claimants – his wife and child. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is admitted. Separate residence is also admitted. Various contentions are raised to resist the claim for maintenance. 3. First of all, it is contended that though the marriage had been solemnised between the petitioner whose first wife had expired and the claimant/wife herein, such marriage is not valid for the reason that the claimant was earlier married to another person and such marriage is subsisting even now. In support of this contention, the petitioner relied on the entries R.P.(FC)No. 99 of 2007 -: 2 :- in the electoral register which suggested that the claimant/wife – one Sobhanakumari, was residing with one Murugan. That alleged residence admittedly took place long prior to the marriage between the petitioner and the claimant/wife. Except this piece of evidence to indicate joint residence, there is absolutely nothing to show that there was a valid marriage performed between the claimant/wife and the said Murugan or that such relationship was continuing even now. The claimant/wife denies such joint residence. But even assuming that there was such joint residence, it is insufficient to throw over board the admitted evidence available about the solemnisation of the marriage between the petitioner and the claimant/wife. The meager indication of joint residence between the claimant/wife and one Murugan available from Exts.R1(a) and (b) and R8 is not, at any rate, sufficient to conclude that there was no valid marriage between the petitioner and the claimant/wife or that such marriage was bigamous and not worthy of recognition by a court considering the claim under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. 4. The second contention is more interesting. It is contended that the wife is residing separately without sufficient cause. The petitioner, who, in the first breath, contends that she is not the legally wedded wife, in the next, wants to R.P.(FC)No. 99 of 2007 -: 3 :- advance a contention that the claimant's separate residence is not justified. Significantly, in the counter statement filed there is no specific offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. Even assuming that there was such an offer, the said offer cannot be reckoned as fair, reasonable or bona fide in the wake of the earlier contention that the claimant/wife is not a legally wedded wife of the petitioner. That very plea justifies her separate residence, according to me. 5. The third and the last contention raised is one about the quantum of maintenance awarded. Amounts of Rs.800/- and Rs.600/- per mensem alone have been awarded. The petitioner is working as teacher in a Government school. The petitioner has not chosen to produce any authentic data to show his gross income or his carry home income. He contends that his carry home monthly income is less than Rs.4,000/- after various deductions. The wife asserts that his salary is Rs.12,000/- and he has income of Rs.10,000/- per month from the landed properties. Be that as it may, the admitted evidence about the stable employment and income of the petitioner more than adequately justifies the direction to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/- per mensem to the claimant/wife. No dispute is raised about the maintenance awarded to the 2nd claimant/child. 6. The petitioner further contends that the claimant/wife is R.P.(FC)No. 99 of 2007 -: 4 :- working. She is employed as a tapper, it is asserted. It is not substantiated. The assertion about the employment is denied. The learned counsel then contends that the claimant/ wife has properties. No evidence is produced. Reliance is placed on her admission in the course of cross-examination. That admission has been read over to me. The admission is only that her mother has properties which after the death of the mother would enure to her benefit. This cannot be reckoned as sufficient to take the claimant/wife out of the category of persons who are unable to maintain themselves. 7. The conclusion appears to be inevitable, in these circumstances, that there is no merit in the challenge raised. 8. This R.P.(FC) is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge R.P.(FC)No. 99 of 2007 -: 5 :-