IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 RPFC.NO. 143 OF 2007() ---------------------- MC.88/2006 OF FAMILY COURT, KASARGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER – RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------- ABDULLA K.A., S/O. ABOOBACKER HAJI, MARUTHAMBALI, KALLAKATTA, CHENGALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SMT. BEEVI, D/O. ABOOBACKER HAJI, BERKA HOUSE, CHENGALA VILLAGE & POST, KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT. 2. ABOOBACKER SINAN, S/O. SMT.BEEVI & ABDULLA K.A., 3. AYISHATH MUNASA, D/O. SMT.BEEVI & ABDULLA K.A., 4. FATHIMATH JAMANA, D/O. SMT.BEEVI & ABDULLA K.A., (RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4 IS MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS NATURAL GUARDIAN). ADV. SRI.K.ANAND FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(FC) No.143 of 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of August, 2009 O R D E R -------------- This revision is in challenge of the order passed by the Family Court, Kasargod in M.C.No.88 of 1996 allowing maintenance to respondents 1 to 4, wife and children of petitioner at the rate of Rs.1,500/- to wife, Rs.750/- each to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Rs.500/- to respondent No.4 respectively, per month. It is not disputed that petitioner married respondent No.1 on 10.5.1998 and that respondent Nos.2 to 4 are born in that wedlock. It is also not disputed that parties are living separately from 24.12.2005 onwards, according to respondents on account of matrimonial cruelty and harassment by petitioner towards respondent No.1. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 is living separately without sufficient reason and in spite of efforts she has not cared to join petitioner. 2. It is not disputed by either side that after respondents took up separate residence on 24.12.2005 petitioner has taken another lady in marriage, is living with her and a child is born in that wedlock. Evidence of respondent No.1 which the court below accepted is that petitioner subjected her to cruelty and harassment. There is no reason R.P(FC) No.143 of 2007 -: 2 :- to differ from the finding of the court below in that regard. At any rate, fact that petitioner has taken another lady in marriage though after parties hereto started separate residence is sufficient reason for respondent No.1 to live separately. 3. So far as maintenance awarded to respondent Nos.2 to 4 is concerned it is submitted by learned counsel that petitioner is not challenging that. Challenge is only to the award of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1, wife aged 25 years at the time of making the application in the year 2006. It is contended by learned counsel that amount awarded is excessive. Respondent No.1 is also earning by way of tailoring work. He stated that petitioner is a painter by occupation which is a seasonal work. 4. Court below observed that parties hail from reasonably good circumstances. One circumstance relied by the learned Judge is that four of the brothers of respondent No.1 are P.W.D. contractors and it is difficult to think that if petitioner was not a match for respondent No.1, she would have given in marriage to the petitioner. That is a relevant circumstance to be taken into account. Even otherwise petitioner is young and able bodied (he was aged 27 years at the time of making the application) and capable or earning. It is not necessary R.P(FC) No.143 of 2007 -: 3 :- to show that petitioner has landed properties with him. 'Means' referred to in Section 125(1) of the Code Criminal Procedure is the capacity to earn. I am not inclined to think that the amount awarded to respondent No.1 even including the amount awarded to respondent Nos.2 to 4 is beyond the reach of petitioner. With the obligation of maintaining respondent Nos.1 to 4, petitioner has chosen to marry another lady and a child is born in that wedlock. Hence I am inclined to think that he is capable of maintaining all of them. Nor I am inclined to think that Rs.1,500/- awarded to respondent No.1 is excessive calling for interference. There is no merit in the revision petition and the same is only to be dismissed. Revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv