IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 AS.No. 585 of 1998(A) ------------------------------- (OS.(PAUPER).NO.74/1995 OF SUB COURT, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: -------------------------------------- EDATHALASSERI HAMSA ALIAS KUNHIPPA, S/O. MUHAMMED ALIAS BAPPU, NIRAMARUTHUR AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH. RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS: ------------------------------------------ 1. EDATHALASSERI SAFIYA, 28 YEARS, D/O. MUHAMMED, EDATHALASSERI HOUSE, NIRAMARUTHUR AMSOM DESOM IN TIRUR TALUK. 2. CHILDREN NISHAD (MINOR) 9 YEARS, -DO- -DO-. 3. SAMEERA (MINOR) 8 YEARS, -DO- -DO-. 4. NASEERA (MINOR) 6 YEARS, -DO- -DO-. (MINORS 2 TO 4 BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT) BY THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = A.S. NO. 585 OF 1998 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tirur in O.S.74/95. The suit is one for maintenance to a divorced wife and future maintenance to the children and the Court below granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- per month to the wife till the date of divorce and future maintenance to the children as prayed for. The property was also made a charge. 2. It was contended that there was an agreement that the wife will not claim any maintenance but there cannot be any agreement between the parties contrary to law. No such agreement is proved in this case. It is also found by the Court below that the contention of A.S. 585 OF 1998 -2- the wife that the former husband is having income of Rs.5,000/- per month cannot be simply brushed aside. 3. The husband would contend that he is only an agriculturalist and not a driver but it has come out in evidence that the person is having a valid driving licence. So on factual analysis the Court had arrived at a decision and fixed the quantum. Therefore I do not propose to interfere with the decision rendered by the Court below but it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that simultaneously the children moved an application for maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and they have agreed for a lesser amount and an order has been passed accordingly, i.e. at the rate of Rs.250/-. If the parties have entered into such an agreement and the criminal proceedings has ended in that A.S. 585 OF 1998 -3- fashion certainly that will have to be given weight and the realisation of the amount so far as the children are concerned only shall be on the basis of that order. With these observations the appeal is disposed of. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- A.S. 585 OF 1998 -4- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = A.S. No.585 OF 1998 = = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T 3rd June, 2010.