SIVAN Vs. KRISHNAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision Petitioner is the counter petitioner in Maintenance Case No.166/2009 on the files of Family Court, Palakkad. The above maintenance case was filed by the respondents herein under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance allowance from the Revision Petitioner. The respondents are wife and children of the Revision Petitioner. The

(2.) ND respondent was aged 3= years and the 3rd respondent was aged 2= years old. The 1st respondent claimed Rs.2,000/- per month and the 2nd and 3rd respondents claimed Rs.1,500/- each towards their maintenance, from the Revision Petitioner. The Family Court passed the impugned order directing the Revision Petitioner to pay Rs.1,500/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.1,000/- each to the 2nd and 3rd respondents. This order is under challenge in this Revision Petition. 2. The respondents' case is that the 1st respondent is the wife of the Revision Petitioner and the 2nd and 3rd respondents are the two children born out of that wedlock. Their marriage was on 29.08.2004. At the time of the marriage, 1st respondent was given 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.15,000/- as gift. The Revision Petitioner demanded 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments more and tortured her both physically and mentally in connection with the said demand. However, they lived together up to September, 2008 and in the meantime, the 2nd and 3rd respondents were born. Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner never looked after the respondents providing any maintenance to them. He ordered the 1st respondent to take the children to orphanage. According to the respondents, the Revision Petitioner is working as a driver in ABT Parcel Company and he is getting a monthly income of Rs.16,000/-. Per contra, the respondents are unable to maintain themselves. The 1st respondent has no job or income. 2. The Revision Petitioner entered appearance and filed a counter statement, admitting marriage and paternity of the children. But he denied all other allegations regarding the cruelty and ill-treatment. The occupation and income of the Revision Petitioner was also denied. According to him, amount claimed is highly excessive. He is not getting more than Rs.3,000/- per month. According to him, the 1st respondent has some deformity to one hand and she is getting pension for physically handicapped persons. The 1st respondent was examined as PW1 and Exts.D1 to D3 were marked.

(3.) THERE is no illegality or impropriety in the said findings which has also come out in evidence that the Revision Petitioner himself filed an O.P. seeking divorce. That itself is a sufficient material to prove that he is reluctant in living along with his wife.