IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 200 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.186/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD. .................... PETITIONER : RESPONDENT --------------------------- M.AHAMMED,S/O.AMMANATH HAJI,SADATH MANZIL, THAYAL MAUVVAL,P.O.MAUVVAL,PALLIKKARA VILLAGE,HOSDURG TALUK,NOW R/AT P.B.NO.4328, ABUDHABI,U.A.E.,REP,BY HIS P/A HOLDER SRI.M.YUSUF, S/O.AMMANATH1 HAJI, R/IN YASAR MANZIL,BILAL NAGAR, P.O.MOUVVAL,PALLIKKARA VILL,HOSDURG TALUK,KASARGOD BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENTS: ------------- BEEBI, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.M.AHAMMED, RESIDING AT KANNAMKULAM, P.O.BEKAL, PALLIKKARA II VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT FOR R1 SRI.K.N.ABHILASH FOR R1 SMT.R.LEELA FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 200 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioner in this R.P.(FC) assails an order passed under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance to the claimant – his wife. 2. There is an unfortunate, but a sad and interesting story behind this case. Initial marriage is admitted. Subsequently, the claimant/wife was divorced as the petitioner allegedly doubted the paternity of the 2nd child born to the lady. He married again. He had 4 children in that wed-lock. Later, allegedly at the instance of his father-in-law, who pleaded the interests of the children before him, he remarried the claimant. Thereafter also he neglected and refused to pay maintenance to her. This obliged her to come to court with a claim under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. R.P.(FC) No. 200 of 2008 -: 2 :- 3. Various contentions were raised in defence. The father- in-law, who had by then died, had left a lot of properties for the claimant/wife, it was contended. It was further contended that the petitioner had also made provisions for her. 4. Parties went to trial on these contentions. Except the evidence of the lady/claimant as P.W.1, there was no other evidence at all. The court below, on her evidence, came to the conclusion that she is unable to maintain herself and that the petitioner having sufficient means has refused and neglected to maintain her. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to direct payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per mensem. The petitioner is employed abroad. He is employed in the Defence Service of the Abudabi Government. According to the petitioner, he gets an amount of Rs.35,000/- per mensem 5. No evidence whatsoever was adduced on the side of the respondent. 6. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel contends that the claimant is not a woman unable to maintain herself. He further contends that he has not refused or neglected to maintain her. Thirdly, he contends that, at any rate, the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. Lastly, he wants R.P.(FC) No. 200 of 2008 -: 3 :- to bring to the notice of the court that he has again divorced the claimant/wife. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent disputes the assertion that there has been any valid subsequent divorce. It is not necessary for me to go into that question in detail. I leave the question there. If there has been such a valid divorce, appropriate further steps can be taken by the parties concerned. 8. There is total absence of evidence to show that the claimant is a woman not unable to maintain herself. There is also no evidence to show that the petitioner has not refused and neglected to maintain his wife. On the materials available about the needs of the claimant and the means of the petitioner, the direction to pay an amount of Rs.3,500/- per mensem as maintenance does appear to me to be absolutely reasonable, just and fair. The same does not, at any rate, warrant interference by invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 9. This R.P.(FC) is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge