IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2009 / 2ND POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 180 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.238/2001 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER:RESPONDENT IN MC: -------------------------------------------------- T.K.ABDUL NAZEER @ RASHEED, AGED 33 YEARS, TAILOR, S/O. ABDUL, THEKKUMKATTIL HOUSE, PALLIMUKKU, POOKKOTTUR P.O., ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHAMMED PUZHAKKARA RESPONDENT(S):PETITIONERS 1 TO 3: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. UMAIBA, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O. SULAIMAN, PANGADAN HOUSE, MADASSERI, P.O. VANIYAMBALAM. 2. FATHIMATH BAREERATH, AGED 5 YEARS (MINOR). 3. ABUSUFIYAN, AGED 3 YEARS (MINOR), (MINORS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN, MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT). ADV. SRI.PROMY KAPRAKKATT FOR R1 SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT FOR R1 SRI.K.N.VINODKUMAR FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.MA.NO.5010/2009 IN RP(FC).NO.180/2009. DISMISSED. 23.12.2009. SD/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE. kvs/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(FC).No.180 of 2009. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the respondent in MC.No.238/2001, a petition filed by the respondents who are the wife and two children of the revision petitioner, before the Family Court, Manjeri under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They filed the petition with an allegation that the revision petitioner appropriated gold ornaments and the money given by the parents of the first respondent at the time of marriage and went abroad. When he returned, he demanded more ornaments and money for starting business. He, thereafter, sent the respondents out of the matrimonial home and that the respondents had to take shelter at the parental house and that the respondents were devoid of any means for their maintenance and that the revision petitioner was a tailor earning Rs.500/- per day. He was also earning as a real estate broker. Respondents R.P.(FC).No.180 of 2009. -: 2 :- sought for an order of maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- each. 2. The revision petitioner denied of appropriating the ornaments and money belonging to first respondent. He denied the allegation of demand for money and desertion and also took up a contention that the first respondent wanted him to reside at her parental home for which he was not amenable and that she had no good reason to live separately and that she is a good tailor, earning Rs.2,000/- per month and that the revision petitioner is not liable to pay any separate maintenance and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 3. During the course of enquiry, the first respondent was examined as Pw1 and the revision petitioner was examined as Rw1. The trial court on appraisal of the evidence arrived at a conclusion that the revision petitioner had contracted a second marriage. Hence, there is justification for the first respondent living separate and that R.P.(FC).No.180 of 2009. -: 3 :- there is no evidence to come to a conclusion that the respondents are having any source of income for their maintenance. Whereas, the revision petitioner was able to maintain the respondents. Consequently, the revision petitioner was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.350/- to the first respondent and at the rate of Rs.300/- each to the respondents 2 and 3. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order, this revision petition was filed. 4. Having gone through the order impugned, I find that since the revision petitioner had contracted a second marriage, the question of parties joining together does not arise. The first respondent is justified in living separate. The learned counsel could not establish that the respondents have got any independent source of income. So, they are entitled to an order of separate maintenance. Lower court was correct in awarding so. The revision petitioner had admitted that he is a tailor. But his R.P.(FC).No.180 of 2009. -: 4 :- contention is that he is running the shop by availing loan and he had to repay the loan amount. That is not at all a good reason to decline the prayer for maintenance. The amount now awarded by the trial court is only a pittance. With the amount awarded, the respondents could not make both ends meet. It is not at all exorbitant. Neither it is beyond the means of the revision petitioner. The fact that the revision petitioner contracted another marriage would show that there was no lack of income. The revision petition is devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-