IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 315 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.342/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------------- SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O. KHADER MOIDEEN, AGED 32, RESIDING AT PARAKULATH, KUNISSERY AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN SRI.BABY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS & STATE: --------------------------------- 1. THAJ, D/O. SAYED MOHAMMED, CHERUKOTTIL, PATHANAPURAM, KAVASSERY AMSOM, DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK. 2. SHIFA (MINOR REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER THE 1ST RESPONDENT). 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.315 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petitioner in this Revision Petition assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- per mensem to the 1st claimant/wife and Rs.700/- per mensem to his child. Complainant offered to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. The wife asserted that she was obliged to take up separate residence as the petitioner was guilty of matrimonial cruelty against her and because he was having an extra marital affair with a lady in the neighbourhood. The petitioner, it was contended, was an autorickshaw driver. It is now argued by the respondent that the petitioner has secured employment as a mazdoor in the Kerala State Electricity Board. 2. The petitioner contended that the wife is not unable to maintain herself. She is a graduate. She was admittedly employed earlier as a teacher in a Nursery School. But she asserted that she is not having any employment at present. The mere fact that she has educational qualifications as a graduate and had worked some time prior to the marriage as a Nursery School Teacher are not by itself sufficient to persuade this Court to accept the contention that she is not a woman unable to R.P.F.C. No.315 of 2007 2 maintain herself. Many a woman in our society is adequately qualified and may have taken up employments prior to her marriage. But after marriage, she is relegated to the home and she becomes a mere home maker. Once there is some disagreement between the spouses and separate residence starts one cannot reasonably expect her to take up an employment immediately thereafter. Significantly there is not a semblance of evidence even to suggest that the petitioner is now actually employed and is earning any income. In these circumstances, the conclusion of the court below that the claimant/wife is unable to maintain herself does appeal to me as absolutely reasonable, cogent, fair and just. The same does not warrant any interference invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 3. It is finally submitted that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive and at any rate, maintenance need not have been directed to be paid from the date of the petition. The petitioner was admittedly an autorickshaw driver. It is contended that he has secured stable employment and is now a Mazdoor in the K.S.E.B. It is further contended that he has landed property also. Be that as it may, even reckoning the petitioner as just an able bodied person, I am satisfied that the quantum fixed by the R.P.F.C. No.315 of 2007 3 court below @ Rs.1000/- and Rs.700/- for the wife and child is hardly sufficient to help them to keep their body and soul together. The quantum of maintenance granted cannot by any stretch of imagination be held to be excessive or perverse as to justify revisional interference with the quantum fixed. 4. It is true that the maintenance was awarded from the date of petition. There is no contention that there was any payment of maintenance - except interim maintenance as awarded by the court below during this period. There can be no doubt that when there is no dispute regarding the liability and it is only the reluctance of the petitioner to pay and discharge admitted liability, the order of maintenance must normally take effect from the date of the petition and not from the date of the order. Destruction of proceedings cannot confer any advantage on a litigant. Needless to say, due credit shall be given to all interim maintenance paid as also payments made consequent to the interim order issued by this Court in this case. I am satisfied that the direction to pay maintenance from the date of petition does not warrant interference. 4. This R.P.F.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-