GOKUL K.G. Vs. RESHMA P.K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision on hand is filed against an order passed by the Family Court, Nedumangad on 20.02.2018 in M.C.No.349 of 2017.

(2.) The facts relevant for consideration of this revision are summarised hereinbelow:-

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that in the counter statement filed in the M.C., the respondent had taken up a contention that the 1st petitioner was employed as Biomedical Engineer in a private hospital and was getting sufficient income and therefore, was able to maintain herself. During cross examination of the 1st petitioner as PW1, she was questioned with reference to the said aspect and she has stated that she was employed but, temporarily. According to him the court below discarded the contention taken by the respondent in the backdrop of the above evidence and passed the impugned order directing him to pay maintenance at the rates stated hereinabove. According to the learned counsel, he has produced certain documents alongwith the revision and the documents would go to show that the 1 st petitioner was employed at the relevant time when M.C. was considered by the Family Court. According to the learned counsel, the 1 st petitioner has belied before the court that she was not permanently employed at the relevant time and therefore, this Court has every power to cancel the order of maintenance passed in favour of the 1 st petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that documents produced by the respondent alongwith the revision are disputed by the 1st petitioner. According to him she has not given a complaint raising allegations before the police.