BAIJU Vs. HEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision on hand is preferred by the respondent/husband challenging the order passed by Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.No.417 of 2007. As per the disputed order, the Family Court has allowed monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,000/- to the 1 st petitioner and Rs.4,500/- to the 2nd petitioner from the date of the petition till 03.02.2009 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.4,000/- each to both petitioners. The Family Court has also ordered to pay cost of the proceedings to the petitioners. The parties for convenience will hereinafter be referred to as the respondent and the petitioners in accordance with their status in the M.C.

(2.) The facts of the case are narrated in brief hereunder: The parties got married on 09.04.2001 and a child was born on 06.09.2002. The 1st petitioner was constrained to leave the matrimonial home on 11.07.2007 due to the ill treatment by the respondent and in-laws. According to her, after giving birth to the child she returned to the matrimonial home but she could not stay there for long, in view of the ill-treatment suffered at the matrimonial home. Therefore, she shifted her stay to her parental home along with the child. Respondent neglected her and the child and therefore she was constrained to file petitions raising claims for return of gold ornaments, past maintenance and monthly maintenance. The respondent has also moved petitions claiming divorce and recovery of his property from the petitioner's possession. All petitions, except M.C.No.417/2007, claiming monthly maintenance were tried jointly. M.C.No.417/2007 was tried independently. The 1st petitioner and the respondent had adduced oral evidence respectively as PW1 and RW1. Documentary evidence was also adduced by the respondent as Exts.D1 and D2. On appreciation of the evidence as aforesaid, the Family Court has allowed the Maintenance Case and directed the respondent to pay maintenance as stated hereinabove.

(3.) The claim of the 1st petitioner in the M.C was that the respondent was working as Captain in a Foreign Shipping Company and was getting Rs.4,00,000/- monthly as salary. Oral evidence was adduced in tune with but, to substantiate the version, relevant materials were not produced. In the counter statement the respondent has admitted that he was working as Captain but only on contract basis. According to him, he was getting only Rs.60,000/- monthly from his job as Captain. Ext.D1 Discharge Certificate is produced and relied on to substantiate the nature of his job. Ext.D2 is produced to establish that his passport was impounded in the year 2009 consequent to the registration of a criminal case against him. Therefore, he was unable to continue his job as Captain in the Foreign Shipping Company and out of constraints was forced to work as a visiting Faculty in a private college. According to him, in the above scenario the monthly maintenance awarded by the Family Court at the rate of Rs.7,000/- and Rs.4,500/- respectively to petitioners 1 and 2 up to 2009 and Rs.4,000/- each to the petitioners thereafter is on the higher side and modification is required.