IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1941
RPFC.No.401 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 191/2015 DATED 30-08-2019 OF
FAMILY COURT, OTTAPPALAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
MUHAMMED SHABEEB, S/O.ABDUL KHADAR, KALLINGAL
VEEDU, SHORNUR P.O., OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKAKD
DISTRICT-679 121, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER ABDUL KHADER, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.SAIDALI,
KALLINGALL HOUSE, SHORNUR P.O., OTTAPPALAM TALUK,
PALAKAKD DISTRICT-679 121.
BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS
RESPONDENT/S:
FARSANA JIBI, AGED 25 YEARS
D/O.MANAF, PANIKKAVEETTIL HOUSE, THOTTAKKARA P.O.,
OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD-679 102.
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
R.P.(F.C.) No. 401 of 2019
Dated this the 11th day of November, 2019
ORDER
The aforecaptioned revision petition is directed against the
impugned final order dated 30.8.2019 rendered by the Family Court
Ottappalam in M.C.No. 195/2015, whereby the revision petitioner
herein (respondent therein/former husband) has been directed to
pay maintenance @ Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent herein
(former wife).
2. In the above maintenance case, the respondent herein has
claimed that the revision petitioner herein (respondent therein)
should pay maintenance to her @ Rs. 10,000/- per month. The
abovesaid petition has been filed under Sec.125 of the SectionCr.P.C. The
Family Court after taking evidence and after hearing both sides has
found that the revision petitioner has admitted the marital
relationship with the respondent herein, but that they are living
separately from 20.8.2015 and husband (RW2) has admitted that he
has not paid maintenance to the respondent herein after 20.8.2015.
Further, the revision petitioner/former husband has contended that
the wife is working as a floor manager in Kavitha Jewellery,
RPFC 401/19 – : 3 :-
Ottappalam, and drawing salary of more than Rs. 7000/- per month
and she is also taking tuition classes, whereby earning Rs. 3,000/-
per month and that she is perfectly capable of taking care of her
financial needs and necessities and hence she is not entitled for the
grant of maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C.
3. The Family Court found that the husband has subjected
the wife to cruelty in the matrimonial house and a criminal case is
pending against the husband for offence under Sec.498A of the SectionI.P.C.
before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Ottappalam. On an
overall assessment of the factual scenario, the Family Court has held
that the case of the wife that she was not in a position to live in a
peaceful atmosphere in the matrimonial house, etc. was found to be
plausible and the court has held that the wife has justification to live
apart from the revision petitioner. Further the wife (P.W-1) has
deposed that she has no job or income and since the husband is not
paying any maintenance, she has to fully depend on her parents. The
manager of the Kavitha Jewellery was examined as RW1 and he has
stated that P.W-1 has worked as a floor receptionist in Kavitha
Jewellery for a limited period from 15.9.2015 to December 2015 and
she was paid an amount at the range of Rs. 7,525/- to Rs. 8293/- and
RPFC 401/19 – : 4 :-
that she resigned her job in December 2015. Exts.B-1 to B-3 are the
documents in that regard. Further the P.W-1 (wife) has also admitted
at the time of filing of the M.C., she has worked as an Accountant
Trainee for a period two months in Kavitha Jewellery. Ext.B-2(c)
attendance register of the abovesaid jewellery has disclosed that
P.W-1 has attended or worked at the said office only on the first and
second day of 2015 and that it was found that thereafter, the wife is
not having any income to maintain herself. The husband has not led
any evidence to show that the wife is gainfully employed and that she
has income, etc.
4. As regards the income of the husband, the wife has alleged
that the husband is working as a Luggage Scanning Section Head in
airport Abudabi and getting rupees one lakh per month. The husband
(RW2) has denied his job and income and according to him, he is
working as a porter at Dubai airport service and is getting only
amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month and he has produced Ext. A-9
marriage certificate, in which the occupation of RW-2 (husband) is
shown as Baggage Supervisor. When RW 2 was cross-examined
regarding his job shown in Ext. A9, he has deposed that the form for
registration of Ext.A9 marriage certificate was furnished by his father.
RPFC 401/19 – : 5 :-
The husband has also placed reliance on his passport to contend that
he is only working as a porter in Dubai airport service. In Ext.B9 it is
stated that RW2 (husband) is working as a cleaning worker and in
Ext. B-10 dated 14.4.2019 it is stated that he is working as a Loader
and his total salary is 2572 AED, ie. equivalent to approximate Rs.
20,000/-. On the basis of these materials, the Family Court has
taken the view that the husband is working as a porter and getting
about Rs. 20,000/- per month. Further it has also come out in
evidence that the father of RW-2 is doing business and another
brother is working abroad and hence Family Court held that the
revision petitioner has no liability to look after the other members of
the family. Taking into account the present cost of living and
standard of life of the parties and income, the Family Court has found
that the revision petitioner is liable to pay maintenance at least @ Rs.
4,000/- per month from the date of filing (14.12.2015) onwards.
5. The abovesaid findings made by the Family Court are on
the basis of the evidence on record and after due appreciation of
evidence and after hearing both sides. The said view taken by the
Family Court cannot be said to be palpably perverse, unreasonable or
illegal. Hence the revision petitioner has not disclosed any cogent
RPFC 401/19 – : 6 :-
ground for revisional interdiction in this case. However, in the
interest of justice it is ordered that the revision petitioner is granted
two months’ time for clearing all the unpaid arrears, which the
petitioner will deposit before the Family Court within the said time
limit, upon which the Family Court will release the said amount to
the respondent herein. Consequently, it is ordered in the interest of
justice that coercive steps for execution of the impugned order passed
by the Family Court will be kept in abeyance for the abovesaid period
of two months. However, it is made clear that filing of execution
petition and consideration of the same is not in any manner barred
and all what is now ordered to be kept in abeyance is only the actual
initiation of the coercive steps for execution of the impugned order.
The Registry will forward a copy of this order to the Family
Court, Ottappalam, who dealt with M.C.No. 195/2015 and to the
respondent herein for necessary information.
With these observations and directions, the above revision
petition will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE