IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 RPFC.No. 132 of 2008() ----------------------------------- MC.203/2007 of family court, kasargod .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- D.M.K.MOHAMMED, S/O.LATE PUTHABABA BEARY, AGED 42 YEARS, KINNIYAJ HOUSE, THAMAR, KODLAMOGARU VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. T.G.RAJENRAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------------------- MAIMOONA, D/O.ABDULKHADER & AISHA MANZIL AGED 32 YEARS, MOOSADI, UPPALA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(FC) NO.132 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Heard counsel on both sides. 2. This revision is in challenge of the order for payment of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Kozhikode in favour of respondent in M.C. No.203 of 2007. She was awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month. According to respondent, petitioner married her on 19.9.2004 making her believe that his first wife is staying away, it is impossible for the first wife to return to him and thus he badly needed the company of respondent. After marriage they started living together in the course of which petitioner subjected her to matrimonial cruelty and harassment. Now she is living separately. Petitioner has neglected and refused to maintain her. She claimed maintenance from petitioner at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month. She claimed that petitioner is a rich and able bodied man engaged in real estate business and has landed properties. Petitioner while refuting the allegations claimed that respondent cheated him. He also stated that he was extending a helping hand to the respondent by taking her as wife notwithstanding that he has already a wife and five children as respondent had crossed the marriageable age and there was no R.P(FC) No.132 of 2008 -: 2 :- possibility of her getting a suitable alliance. He also claimed that attempt of respondent is to extract money from him and tarnish his image at the instigation of his enemies. He denied that he has that much income as claimed by the respondent. The further allegation is that respondent is an expert tailor and earning Rs.100/- per day. 3. In the court below respondent gave evidence as P.W.1. Petitioner was examined as R.W.1. He proved Exts.B1 and B2 to show that on the complaint of respondent a case was registered against him and others for matrimonial cruelty and harassment. Court below found that respondent has reason for separate residence and claim maintenance. She was awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month. 4. I perused copy of petition, counter petition and copy of deposition of witnesses produced by counsel for respondent. Contention of petitioner is that respondent has no reason to stay apart and claim maintenance. But there was no offer in the court below to take the respondent. Moreover in the nature of the allegations made by the petitioner against respondent she is entitled to have separate residence and maintenance. In the facts and circumstances and considering the relationship between petitioner and respondent, the latter cannot be found fault with for taking up separate residence. R.P(FC) No.132 of 2008 -: 3 :- Respondent would say that petitioner, before marrying her married ten times. Petitioner on the other hand would say that respondent had married once before his marrying her. That fact, respondent is also not disputing. In the light of the estranged relationship between petitioner and respondent court below was justified in holding that respondent is entitled to separate residence and maintenance. 5. There is no reason or evidence to hold that respondent is able to maintain herself. On the other hand, it has come in evidence that petitioner is a local leader of a political party and is able bodied. Rupees two thousand five hundred per month is not beyond his reach. Even according to him, he has another wife and five children. Necessarily he is capable of maintaining them also. The amount of Rs.2,500/- awarded by the court below, considering the age of respondent, her basic necessities, cost of living, etc., cannot be said to be a luxury for her requiring interference by the revisional court. Revision is without merit. It fails and is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv