RAJEESH KUMAR Vs. SUBHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE husband is aggrieved by the maintenance order obtained by his wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C from the Family Court, Vatakara. The marriage was solemnized on 22.4.2012, but the matrimony did not last long. The wife has been residing seperately since July 2012. Alleging desertion and cruelty, the wife approached the Family Court with maintenance claim. The revision petitioner / husband entered apperanace in the trial court and resisted the claim on the contention that his wife is mentally ill, and is not capable to perform her marital obligations. He further contended that she is being properly maintanined by her brother who has a bakery of his own. He also stated that he has filed OP 273/12 for declaration of nullitty.

(2.) THE trial court conducted enquiry in the proceedings, and recorded evidence. The wife examined herself as PW1 and the husband examined himself as CPW1. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found that the wife is entitled to claim maintenance, and that the husband is capable with sufficient means. Accordingly, the husband was directed to pay maintenance to the wife at the rate of 3,500/ - per month by order dated 16.11.2013 in M.C 93/12. The said order is under challenge in this revision brought under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act.

(3.) IT is submitted that the petition filed by the revision petitioner before the Family Court for declaration of nullity stands dismissed. In this proceeding also there is absolutly no material to show that his wife has any sort of mental illness ,or that she has failed in performing her marital obligations as a wife. Admittedly the matrimony lasted only for a few weeks, and the wife has been residing seperately since July 2007. The husband has no case that he had made payment of anything to her since the seperation. The allegation made by the husband that the wife is insane cannot be lightly taken or ignored. Such a lady will have her own grievance, and there is no doubt that such a baseless allegation will constitute culpable and unpardonable cruelty on the part of the husband. No doubt, she is entitled to get claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Now the question is whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial court requires interference in revision. The case of the wife is that it revision petitioner has sufficient income from various sources, and that is not less than 30,000/ - per month. But the case of the revision petitioner is that he is only a helper to mason, and he will get only 300 per day as wages. We cannot shut our eyes to the social realities including the present day wage structure where even a coolie will get not less than 500/ - per day. When a mason will get about 700/ - per day, his helper will get not less than Rs.500/ - per day. Considering the present day wage structure, I find that the revision petitioner has sufficient income as a Coolie or otherwise or as an ablebodied person who has physical potentials to earn for his livelihood. Anyway the court's concern in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C must always be the requirment of the claimant, and not what the respondent has in his hands. In short the claimant cannot claim share of the income of the respondent. She can claim only what she requires. In the present circumstances including the circumstances of the respondent that he does not have any permanent job even as a coolie I feel that 3,000/ - per month will do justice as the adequate amount of maintenance, and the trial court order can be modified accordingly. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of as follows, without being admitted to files.