Manikandan vs Raveena

A.Badharudeen, J

RP(FC)No.302 of 2022 has been filed by the respondent in MC No.269 of 2021 on the file of the Family Court, Tirur, arraying the petitioner in the above petition as the respondent.

The respondent in RP(FC)No.302 of 2022 has filed RP(FC)No.316 of 2022 seeking enhancement of maintenance granted by the Family Court.

Heard the respective counsel and perused the records available.

I shall refer the parties in these revisions as to their status before the Family Court as wife as the petitioner and husband as the respondent.

The petitioner, who is the wife of the respondent, filed maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month. According to the petitioner, the respondent had been running construction and interior business at Pookkattiri and has been earning Rs.1 lakh per month. It was also contended by the petitioner before the Family Court that she did not have any means of maintenance.

The respondent resisted the claim specifically on two grounds. According to the respondent, the petitioner completed B.Ed course and she got employment in Cherulal High School as a teacher, after paying Rs.35 lakh to the school management. The second contention was that the respondent had no job or income and he had been assisting his father in construction works.

The Family Court ventured the matter. The petitioner was examined as PW1. Ext.P1 also was marked on the side of the petitioner. The respondent got examined as RW1. Thereafter, the Family Court found that the job of the petitioner as a teacher in a school was not at all established. The Family Court also found that regarding the employment of the respondent, only oral submissions and affirmations and no documentary evidence. It is at this juncture, the Family Court granted Rs.10,000/- as maintenance.

While assailing the order granting maintenance as well as its quantum, the learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the contentions raised before the Family Court. According to her, a specific contention has been raised by the respondent to the effect that the petitioner got employed as a teacher in a private school. But when the learned counsel was asked to justify the evidence in support of this contention, she miserably failed to point out even remote piece of evidence in this regard.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that employment in a school as a teacher is a matter could be proved easily by producing documents from the school authorities and mere allegation that she got employment as a teacher is of no significance. He also pointed out that, though the petitioner had completed B.Ed course, she did not pass KTET exam and therefore, she is not even qualified to get the post of a teacher, as contended.

As far as this contention is concerned, much discussion is not required. That is to say, no evidence forthcoming to see that the petitioner is employed either as a teacher or otherwise. Therefore, the petitioner's entitlement of maintenance as found by the Family Court is perfectly justifiable.

Regarding the quantum, the learned counsel for the respondent raised serious challenge on the ground that the respondent did not have any permanent employment and he has been assisting his father in construction works.

Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent has been doing construction works and has been earning Rs.1 lakh per month and he sent out the petitioner, who was pregnant, from the matrimonial home just after completion of four months of joint residence, as he has been maintaining illicit relationship with another lady and living with her. He also submitted that the respondent not even paid the hospital expenses for the delivery of the petitioner. He also did not pay even a single penny either to the petitioner or to the minor child except deposit of Rs.70,000/- as per the interim order of this Court.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner requires atleast Rs.15,000/- per month to survive and therefore, the quantum of compensation is liable to be enhanced atleast to the tune of Rs.15,000/-.

While crystallizing the dispute insofar as the quantum of maintenance, I am inclined to have a glimpse on the evidence of PW1 as well as RW1. PW1 asserted the contentions in the petitions, eventhough no documentary evidence produced to prove the employment or income of the respondent. However, RW1, the respondent in this matter had admitted that he had completed engineering diploma course and worked in Hyundai, Malappuram. His father had been doing construction contract works and he had been helping his father. Although he had denied transaction of lakhs of rupees in his account, he admitted that he had been doing share marketing business. He also had given evidence that he had purchased Honda car and also he is the owner of an Ertiga car. During re-examination, he would say that he had been paying Rs.4,000/- as bank loan.

In fact, no evidence forthcoming to see that the respondent had been doing the job of construction works. But he admitted that he had been helping his father in construction works and also he had share marketing business. This admission would go to show that the respondent is capable of earning a substantial sum.

Therefore, I am of the view that grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- to the Family Court to the petitioner requires no interference either by reduction or by addition. Therefore, the order impugned is confirmed.

In the result, both revision petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed.