SUNNY Vs. SHEEBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Thodupuzha, in M.C 65/2014. The revision petitioner was the respondent and the respondents were the petitioners in the above petition. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the Family Court.

(2.) The petitioners had filed the petition against the respondent for a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.4,000.00 and Rs.3,000.00, respectively. It was their case that, the first petitioner is the wife of the respondent and the second petitioner is the daughter born in their wedlock. The respondent was constantly harassing the first petitioner demanding more dowry. On an earlier occasion, the respondent drew away the first petitioner from the matrimonial home. She had then filed M.C 8/2009 before the Family Court for an order of maintenance. The dispute between the parties was settled, the petition was withdrawn and the parties resumed cohabitation. Yet again, the respondent started to ill-treat the first petitioner. The first petitioner then lodged a complaint against the respondent and his relatives before the Police complaining that they had committed the offence under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code ( in short ' I.P.C). The respondent is a Mason by profession and is getting a monthly income of Rs.20,000.00. He also has landed property and is getting an agricultural monthly income of Rs.8,000.00. The petitioners have no sufficient means to maintain themselves. The second petitioner is studying in the sixth standard. The respondent has refused to maintain the petitioners. Hence, the petition.

(3.) The respondent resisted the petition by filing a written objection, inter alia, contending that the first petitioner left the matrimonial home without any sufficient reason or cause. The first petitioner is not interested to live with the respondent. Even though the earlier maintenance case was withdrawn and the parties resumed cohabitation, the first petitioner went away to her parental home. Thereafter, she filed a false complaint before the Police alleging that the respondent, his father and sister to have committed the offence under Sec.498A r/w Sec.34 of the I.P.C. The Police filed their final report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha, and the case was numbered as CC 48/2010. However, the accused were acquitted. The first petitioner is living in her matrimonial home without any sufficient cause. Therefore, the respondent is not liable to maintain the petitioners. The respondent does not have any permanent job or income as alleged in the petition. The petition is only liable to be dismissed.