VATTAKANDIYIL SARA Vs. MEETHALE PUTHOOR MOIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners herein are the wife and the son of the respondent. They filed M.C. No. 324 of 2009 against the respondent in the Family Court, Kozhikode, claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent resisted the claim on the contention that the wife has income from landed properties, and that he is not able to pay to the son as claimed in the petition. The trial court conducted enquiry in the proceedings and recorded evidence. The 1st revision petitioner examined herself as PW1 and the respondent examined himself as RW1. The trial court found on evidence that the 1st revision petitioner has landed properties and income therefrom. The trial court also found that some of the properties were in fact given to her by her husband while he was working abroad, and when the matrimonial was happy and peaceful. Of course, as regards the son, the trial court found that the father has to pay reasonably, though the mother has her own source of income. Accordingly, the trial court passed orders in M.C. No. 324 of 2009 on 26.7.2010 disallowing maintenance to the 1st petitioner, but directing the respondent to pay maintenance to the minor son at the rate of 750/ -per month. Aggrieved by the order disallowing maintenance to the 1st petitioner and dissatisfied with the amount granted to the 2nd petitioner, they brought this revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act.

(2.) ON hearing the learned counsel and on a perusal of the case records, I find that the claim of the 1st petitioner was rightly disallowed by the trial court. As regards the 2nd petitioner, it is submitted that he has already attained majority, and so the liability of the respondent is in fact for a very short period. The amount awarded by the trial court is only 750/ - per month to the child, who was aged 15 years as on the date of filing of the petition. There is absolutely no scope for interference in the quantum of maintenance awarded to the child. The 1st petitioner has admitted in evidence that she has three items of properties yielding income and that the entire income is being appropriated by her. It has come out in evidence that some properties were given to her by her husband when the matrimony was happy and peaceful. I find that such a lady cannot claim maintenance from her husband in the present factual circumstances where the husband was in fact driven out by the wife and two children. I find no scope for interference in the order passed by the court below. As a person having her own properties and income therefrom, the 1st petitioner is capable of maintaining herself, and the 2nd petitioner has already attained majority, it appears that the respondent is not very much aggrieved by the order in favour of the minor son because his liability is only for a very short period at the rate of 750/ - per month. In the particular factual situation, where evidence satisfies the court that the respondent had to leave the matrimonial home when abandoned or driven out by the wife and children, I find no scope for enhancement in the amount awarded in favour of the 2nd petitioner. Accordingly, I find that this revision is liable to be dismissed.