BIJUKUMARI Vs. SREEKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in M.C. No.2013/2011 on the file of the Family Court, Chavara are the revision petitioners herein. They filed the application for maintenance under section 125(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code).

(2.) THE petitioners case was that the respondent married the first petitioner on 05.02.1999 as per custom and thereafter they were living together as husband and wife in which the second petitioner was born on 04.11.2000. At the time of marriage, 104 sovereigns of gold ornaments and valuable presentation items were given. The respondent and the family members misappropriated at the same except the daily wearing the gold ornaments. During the initial stage of marriage, there was no difficulty for her to live in the house and thereafter, on account of ill -treatment, it has become impossible for her to live in the house. So, she had to leave the matrimonial home and now she residing with her parents. He is employed in Indian Rare Earth(IRE) Chavara and getting reasonable income. Further, he is also having landed property and getting good income from the properties as well. The amounts deposited in her name by her father were also withdrawn and misappropriated by the respondent. Suits are pending for recovery of the amount and the gold ornaments. The respondent is working and getting monthly income of ' .5500/ - and also getting ' .10,000/ - from his properties. The first petitioner is not having any income of her own and she need ' .3000/ - per month for her maintenance and ' .1000/ - for the minor child. Thereafter, they filed an application for amendment enhancing the claim for maintenance of ' .7500/ - to the first petitioner and ' .5000/ - to the second petitioner and that was allowed.

(3.) FIRST petitioner was examined as PW1 and respondent was examined as RW1 and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the petitioners and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the respondent. After considering the evidence on record, the court below found that the first petitioner is not entitled to get maintenance has she is employed and getting income but awarded an amount of ' .2000/ - to the child alone which is being challenged by the revision petitioner by filing this revision. Since, the respondent has appeared, this court felt that the revision petition can be admitted and heard and disposed of on merit today itself after hearing both sides. So revision is admitted and heard both sides and disposed of today itself on merit.