IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 RPFC.No. 129 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.478/2007 of Family Court, Malappuram .................... (S): REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- PUKKODAN SUNIL KUMAR,AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.CHATHANKUTTY,THACHOMPADI VEEDU, PUVATHIKKAL P.O.,AREEKODE (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ ODERAN LEELA,AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.SANKARAN,PULAKKUNNU VEEDU, P.O.VALIYAMBARAMB,PULIKKAL (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.129 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January 2009 O R D E R The petitioner in this revision petition assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per mensum to the claimant, admittedly his wife. Certain fundamental facts appear to be without dispute. Marriage took place on 1/5/2005. Spouses live together only till 16/5/2005. Thereafter they were residing separately. Whatever be the cause for such separate residence and whoever be at fault for such separate residence, neither party took any action till 08/06/2007. It is alleged that on 07/06/2007, the petitioner and his relatives had gone to the house of the claimant/wife and had assaulted her. On 08/06/2007, a notice was issued by the petitioner demanding restitution of conjugal rights. That prayer was resisted on the ground of matrimonial cruelty. Parties were before the Family Court with four different proceedings. The husband filed application for restitution of conjugal rights and that was taken as O.P.No.14/07. The wife initiated three proceedings. One for divorce and the other for past maintenance. She filed a third petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Identical contentions were raised in all the four matters. Divorce was claimed by the wife on the ground of matrimonial cruelty and desertion. R.P.F.C.No.129/08 2 2. The learned Judge of the Family Court, by the impugned common order, took the view that the husband is not entitled for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. It was found that the wife has succeeded in establishing matrimonial cruelty and desertion. It was further found that the wife is entitled for past maintenance under the civil law and future maintenance from the date of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the impugned common order was passed. 3. It is admitted at all hands that the decree for divorce granted in favour of the wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion has not been challenged and has become final. It is also conceded that the dismissal of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the husband has also become final and the same has not been challenged. The husband has preferred an appeal as Mat.A.No.281/08 against the decree for past maintenance. He has preferred this revision petition against the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 4. The decree for divorce has now become final. There can hence be no dispute on the entitlement of the wife for maintenance after the decree for divorce. She, as a divorced wife, is certainly entitled for maintenance after the date of the impugned order, the decree for divorce having become final without challenge. R.P.F.C.No.129/08 3 5. Coming to the validity of the direction for payment of maintenance from the date of the petition to the date of the impugned common order, it has to be noted that the prayer for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been rejected holding that the wife is entitled to reside separately on the ground of cruelty. The learned Judge of the Family Court, in the impugned order, after considering the evidence of the claimant/wife as PW1 and the petitioner/husband as RW1 has come to the conclusion that the wife is entitled for separate maintenance on the ground of cruelty. The decree dismissing the claim for restitution of conjugal rights having become final, I find no merit in the contention raised in this revision petition that the finding that the wife is not justified in her separate residence is wrong and warrants interference. Moreover, it was a case of choosing between the evidence of the claimant/wife as PW1 and the petitioner/husband as RW1. I find absolutely nothing vitiating the finding of fact that the wife is entitled to live separately and claim maintenance. 6. The only question that remains is about the quantum of maintenance. The learned counsel for the petitioner has trained all his guns against the direction for payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per mens um. There is nothing to show that the wife has any source of income. About the precise means and the R.P.F.C.No.129/08 4 income of the petitioner, there are disputes. It is categorically admitted by the petitioner in the witness stand that he is a driver driving a taxi jeep. The amount of maintenance awarded is only Rs.1,500/- per mensum. Reckoning the petitioner as just a skilled worker, the direction to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per mens um, does appear to me to be absolutely fair, reasonable and just. In any view of the matter, the same does not warrant interference. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes impassioned appeals and requests the court to take note of the reality of the situation that the marital life had lasted only 15 days. There has been no co-habitation thereafter even admittedly. But that circumstance, according to me, does not, in any way, disentitle the wife to claim maintenance pre-divorce or post divorce nor does that fact lead me to the conclusion that the maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per mens um is not justified. Going by the needs of the young wife and the means of the husband, a qualified taxi jeep driver, I am satisfied, that the quantum of maintenance awarded does not warrant interference. 8. In the result, this R.P.F.C is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge R.P.F.C.No.129/08 5 R.P.F.C.No.129/08 6 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008