IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 RPFC.No. 277 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.234/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- HANEEF BAMBRANI, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN, BAMBRANI NAGAR, CHERKALA, CHENGALA POST, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY SRI.ABU MATHEW SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE SRI.THOMAS P.MAKIL SRI.K.V.GEORGE RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS: -------------------------- 1. ZAIBUNNISA, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.SALIM, W/O.HANEEF BAMBRANI, K.K.PURAM, THOTTY HOUSE, THALANGARA P.O., KASARAGOD. 2. KADIJATH NIRSANA, AGED 6 YEARS, D/O.HANEEF BAMBRANI, K.K.PURAM, THOTTY HOUSE, THALANGARA P.O., KASARAGOD. (MINOR REP. BY THE IST RESPONDENT MOTHER). THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- R.P.F.C.No.277 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 27th day of July 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of order passed by the Family Court, Kasaragod in M.C.No.234 of 2008 directing petitioner to pay maintenance to the wife and daughter at the rate of Rs.2000/- and Rs.750/- respectively, per month. It is admitted that petitioner married respondent No.1 on 27-05-1993 and respondent No.2 was born in that wedlock. At the time of filing the application respondents were aged 32 and 6 years, respectively. They alleged that petitioner subjected respondent No.1 to matrimonial cruelty and harassment and that he had extra marital relationship with different women who used to come to his music studio in connection with recording of songs. It is the further allegation of respondent No.1 that petitioner married to two other women. It is not disputed by petitioner that he contracted atleast one other marriage apart from his marital bond with respondent No.1. Learned Judge observed that denial of allegations concerning other marriages in the written statement and the cross examination of respondent No.1 as PW1 were halfhearted and that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1. Atleast, it is admitted that petitioner has married another lady and R.P.F.C.No.277 of 2009 2 whatever be the custom or practice prevailing in the community, that gave respondent No.1 a right to separate residence and claim maintenance. I do not find reason to interfere with the finding of the court below as to the entitlement of respondent No.1 to claim maintenance. So far as respondent No.2 is concerned, petitioner is bound to maintain her irrespective of the propriety of her custody with respondent No.1. 2. Next question is whether amount awarded is excessive or beyond the reach of petitioner. It is true that petitioner produced certain documents in the trial court to show that he has been undergoing treatment for some time. Exts.B1 to B5 are of the year 2005 and Ext.B6 is of the year 2009. There is no evidence of any such treatment between 2006-2009. The mere fact that on some occasion petitioner has undergone treatment is not sufficient to show that he is incapable of earning or doing any work. It is in evidence that petitioner is a talented singer and was running a recording studio. His taking a second wife shows his capacity to maintain two families. Petitioner cannot successfully contend that he has no means. It is not as if Rs.2750/- per month is beyond his reach. Nor is the amount awarded excessive. “Maintenance” includes expenses for food, clothing, shelter and all other basic needs. Respondents are aged 32 and 6 years respectively. I am satisfied that the amount awarded is not excessive R.P.F.C.No.277 of 2009 3 so as to call for interference at the instance of petitioner. There is no merit in this revision. It is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/