IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2009 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 955 of 2009 ---------------------------- OP.49/2009 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... APPELLANT IN MAT.APPL./RESPONDENT IN O.P. -------------------------------------------------------- SAITHALI HAJI, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 56, RESIDING AT CHEMBAN KUZHIYIL HOUSE, PAYIPULLU, THUVVOOR P.O., PIN-679 327, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND AND SON, SHAHEES BABU, IN DO. DO. (APPOINTED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.502/2009). BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.N.AJITH SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN RESPONDENT : PETITIONER IN O.P. --------------------------------- SUBAIRA, RESIDING AT KUNDIL HOUSE, THUVVOOR P.O., PIN-679 327, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ Mat.Appeal No.955 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. This appeal is preferred by the appellant claiming to be aggrieved by an order obliging him to pay past maintenance @ Rs.1,500/- per mensem to his wife. Admittedly she is the second wife. Marriage is not disputed though RW1, the son of the appellant who was examined on his side, chose to assert that to his knowledge no marriage is there. Less said about the said evidence of RW1 examined on the side of the appellant, the better. 2. Marriage having been admitted and it having not been disputed that the appellant has another wife and there being no offer whatsoever to maintain her, the only question to be considered is about the acceptability of the quantum fixed. The respondent is shown to be a woman, aged about 42 years. The amount ordered as monthly maintenance is only Rs.1,500/- per mensem. Going by the needs of the 42 year old claimant/wife, the amount awarded can, by no stretch of imagination, be held to Mat.Appeal No.955 of 2009 2 be unreasonable or excessive. It is absolutely modest and reasonable. 3. What then is the grievance? The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not shown to have properties or income to justify the direction to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- per mensem as maintenance. He is sick and is laid up. In these circumstances, the amount awarded is excessive. This is the short contention. 4. Admittedly the appellant was running a business. Ext.A2 clearly shows that he was having a business. It is stated by the counsel at the Bar that the said business stands closed down. There is not a scintilla of evidence in support of this assertion. Documents relating to property were produced. Exts.A2 to A4 are such documents. Counsel contends that these properties have already been disposed of. No scrap of paper is produced to show that such properties have been disposed of. We will assume that those properties have been disposed of. Why have they been disposed of? For what purpose was that money spent? There is not a semblance of evidence on these aspects. Mat.Appeal No.955 of 2009 3 5. Viewed from any angle, we are not persuaded to interfere with the impugned order directing payment of Rs.1,500/- per mensem for 3 years. The appellate jurisdiction available to us under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act does not, at any rate, deserve to be invoked at the instance of the appellant herein. 6. This Matrimonial Appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed. We note that the impugned order is part of a common order. If any challenge is raised against any other part of the common order, the appellant shall bring this judgment to the notice of that Court. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/-