IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 RPFC.No. 333 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.3/2009 of Family Court, Malappuram .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- ALAVI, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.VALIYAPARAMBAN MOHAMMED, ERUMAMUNDA P.O., KURUMBALANGODE AMSOM AND DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- POOLAKKAL NAFEESA, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.POOLAKKAL MOHAMMED, MARUTHA P.O., VAZHIKKADAVU AMSOM, MARUTHA DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.333 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November 2009 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court obliging the revision petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per mensum to the claimant/his wife. 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is conceded. That the husband has remarried after the commencement of separate residence is also admitted. There can, in these circumstances, be no dispute whatsoever about the entitlement of the wife to maintenance from her husband. 3. Of course, there is a contention that the wife is not unable to maintain herself. The only assertion in support of this contention is that the wife is employed as a tailor. She asserted that she has never been employed as a tailor and she does not know tailoring at all. There is not a scintilla of evidence in support of the weired theory that the wife, after her separation or prior to it, was employed as a tailor. In the total absence of any evidence on this aspect, the theory that the wife is not R.P.F.C No.333/09 2 unable to maintain herself need only be discarded. There is a contention that two male children born in the wedlock are well off and the wife can depend upon them. This can, by no strech of imagination, be held to be sufficient reason to absolve a husband having sufficient means from his obligation of maintaining his wife on the ground that the wife is not unable to maintain herself. The wife may be looked after by many others when pushed to the wall; but ordinarily and normally she is entitled to demand maintenance from her husband. Her first claim for maintenance is always against her husband. 4. Then we come to the contention that the husband is not having sufficient means. Admissions galore about his affluent financial position. He has a house. Admittedly, he has three shop rooms. Admittedly he has an extent of 10 cents of land. Admittedly he was having rubber estate. The wife asserted that the rubber estate was having an extent of one acre. The husband now asserts that the same has been disposed of by him. Absolutely no evidence has been adduced in support of this theory. 5. As rightly pointed out by the court below, to cap all other circumstances is the vitally relevant circumstance which R.P.F.C No.333/09 3 eloquently declares the assessment of the petitioner himself about his financial ability and affluence. He, admittedly, a person aged about 50 years, fully conscious of his financial responsibility, has now chosen to contract another marriage. That is a clear indication of the affluence, which even according to him, he has. The amount awarded is only Rs.2,000/- per mensum. Going by the needs of the claimant/wife, the same cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse as to warrant revisional interference. Going by the evidence available about the means of the husband and the degree of financial affluence he has, I am satisfied that the quantum of maintenance does not deserve interference invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 6. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, due credit shall be given to all amounts deposited towards the liability under the impugned order on the basis of interim directions issued by this court. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C No.333/09 4 R.P.F.C No.333/09 5 R.P.F.C No.333/09 6 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C No.333/09 7 Crl.R.P.No.504 of 2001 ORDER 17th DAY OF JUNE 2001 R.P.F.C No.333/09 8