ABHILASH P. MOHANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.05.2016 of Family Court, Ernakulam in M.C No.342/2011. The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C Mo.342/2011, on the files of the Family Court, Ernakulam filed by the petitioners seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Family Court has considered the M.C alongwith Original Petition No.2199/2011 and the impugned common judgment was passed. Original Petition and M.C were allowed in part and in the M.C, the revision petitioner was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- to the 3rd respondent, the minor child of the 2nd respondent.

(2.) Though maintenance was claimed by the 2nd respondent also, that was declined by the Family Court after arriving at a finding that she is employed and earning a reasonable sum, therefrom.

(3.) Aggrieved by the judgment directing to pay Rs.10,000/- to the 2nd respondent, the revision petitioner is now before this Court in the revision on hand. Parties are referred to hereinafter in accordance with their status in the M.C as respondent and petitioners. The facts of the case are summarised herein below; The marriage between the respondent and 1st petitioner was solemnized on 04.06.2009 at Sree Krishna Swami Temple, Guruvayoor and a girl child was born in the wedlock on 10.03.2010. After few days of the marriage, the respondent and his family members compelled the 1st petitioner to sell or pledge the gold ornaments to meet their urgent needs of money. The 1 st petitioner entrusted 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the respondents as demanded. Thereafter, the respondent and his relatives started to ill-treat the 1st petitioner, demanding more gold ornaments and money from her. The attitude of the respondent and his family members caused much dejection and pain to the 1 st petitioner. On 15.07.2009, the respondent returned to Cyprus, where he was employed then. At that time, the 1 st petitioner was pregnant and the sister of the respondent demanded the 1 st petitioner to vacate the matrimonial home, since the house belonged to her.