IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1941

RPFC.No. 135 of 2010

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 327/2009 of FAMILY COURT,
MALAPPURAM DATED 30-09-2009

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

CHEERAKUZHIYIL ABDUL NAZAR,
S/O. ENIE, POILISSERY POST,
THRIPPREANGODE AMSOM,, KAINIKKARA DESOM,
TIRUR TALUK,, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS:

1 AREEPARAMBIL SALEENA, D/O. MOIDEEN,
P.O.KODAKKAL, THIRUNAVAYA AMSOM, KARATHOOR
DESOM,, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

2 MOHAMMED SHEMEEL MINOR

3 MOHAMMED SHEBEER MINOR

4 MOHAMMED SHEHAL MINOR,
(MINOR RESPONDENTS ARE REPRESENTED BY
GUARDIAN,, MOTHER, FIRST RESPONDENT).

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 10.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
RPFC.No. 135 of 2010
-2-

O R D E R

The revision petitioner herein challenges

the maintenance order passed by the Family Court,

Malappuram under Section 125 Cr.P.C in M.C. No. 327

of 2009, directing him to pay maintenance to his

wife and three minor children. The age of the

three children as on the date of claim was

respectively 11 years, 8 years, 4½ years. His

wife was aged only 28 years as on the date of

claim. She was married by him at her very young

age. The wife and the children have been residing

separately since December, 2008.

2. The revision petitioner entered

appearance in the trial court, and resisted the

claim of his wife on the contention that she has

been residing separately without any just excuse or

reason. He was represented by his father as power

of attorney holder during the proceedings.

3. When attempts for conciliation failed,
RPFC.No. 135 of 2010
-3-

the trial court recorded evidence on both sides.

The first claimant examined herself as PW1, and the

respondent’s father gave evidence as RW1. Two

witnesses were examined on the side of the

claimants, and one witness was examined on the side

of the respondent. Ext.A1 series was marked on the

side of the claimants, and Ext.B1 was marked on the

side of the respondents. On an appreciation of the

evidence, the trial court found that the wife has

sufficient reason to live separately and claim

maintenance, and that a reunion is practically

impossible due to the severe discord in matrimony.

Accordingly, the trial court directed the husband

to pay maintenance to the wife at the rate of

Rs.2,500/- per month, and to the three children at

the rate of Rs.800/-, 750/- and 500/- per month

respectively. Aggrieved by the said order he has

come up in revision under Section 19(4) of the

Family Courts Act.

RPFC.No. 135 of 2010
-4-

4. The respondents remained absent in the

proceedings despite notice. On an examination of

the materials, I find no reason for interference in

the maintenance granted by the trial court to the

three children. The maintenance claim was made in

2009, and the claim was also allowed in 2009. On a

consideration of the various aspects, including the

probable income of the revision petitioner, who has

admittedly been abroad, the trial court granted

only very reasonable amount to the three children.

It appears that the revision petitioner’s main

grievance is as regards the amount of maintenance

granted to the wife. Of course, there is nothing

to show that she has any income or source of her

own. Admittedly, the revision petitioner has been

employed abroad. Instead of he himself giving

evidence, he examined his father as RW1. The

husband did not turn up to make an offer to take

back his wife and children. The evidence given by
RPFC.No. 135 of 2010
-5-

his father shows that the husband has not been

ready to take back the wife and children, and that

there is presently severe discord in matrimony. She

has even initiated prosecution against him under

Section 498A IPC . The evidence given by the wife

shows that her husband has neglected her and the

children since December, 2008, and that he has not

so far paid anything as maintenance to them. Thus,

a clear case of neglect and desertion is well

proved by the evidence of the first claimant. The

husband could not adduce any contra evidence of his

own. He just examined his father who cannot in fact

say anything about the discord in matrimony, or the

personal affairs in between the husband and wife,

and he cannot even make an offer to take back the

wife and children. I find that the first claimant

has sufficient reason to live separately from her

husband. Her claim was for Rs.4,000/-, but the

trial court awarded only Rs.2,500/- per month.
RPFC.No. 135 of 2010
-6-

Despite notice, she did not turn up to contest this

revision. On a consideration of the various

aspects, including the cost of living as on the

date of claim, I find Rs.2,000/- per month will be

the adequate amount to the wife, and to that

extent, the order in her favour can be modified.

In the result, the revision petition is

allowed in part. The order of the trial court

granting maintenance to the children (petitioners 2

to 4) is confirmed without any modification. But

the order in favour of the first petitioner (wife)

will stand modified to the effect that she shall be

paid maintenance by the revision petitioner at the

rate of 2,000/- per month, from the date of the

petition as already ordered by the trial court.

This is of course subject to periodic modifications

under Section 127 Cr.P.C.

sd/-

P.UBAID
JUDGE
Ds 11.06.2019