SURESH BABU Vs. NITHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C. No. 150/2013 on the files of the Family Court, Ottappalam. The above M.C. was filed under Sec. 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the respondents, who are the wife and son of the revision petitioner, claiming maintenance allowance from the revision petitioner.

(2.) According to the 1st respondent, she is the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner and the 2nd respondent is the son born in that wedlock. She has no job or income and she is unable to maintain herself and the 2nd respondent. It is alleged that the revision petitioner has neglected to pay maintenance allowance since the last 2= years, though he has sufficient income. The revision petitioner is working as a sales man in Devaki Medicals, Mannarkkad, and getting Rs. 10,000/- as monthly salary. In addition to that he has also got landed property and getting Rs. 1,00,000/- per year as income. Thus, the respondents claim Rs. 2,000/- each as maintenance allowance from the revision petitioner.

(3.) The revision petitioner filed a counter affidavit admitting the status of the 1st respondent as wife and the 2nd respondent as his son, but denied all other allegations levelled against him. According to him, he is only a helper in the medical shop referred above and he is getting only Rs. 100/- to Rs. 150/- per day, that too was not getting regularly. He has no landed property as stated by the respondents. Moreover, according to him the 1st respondent is working as a sales girl in Mullas Wedding Centre, Mannarkkad, and getting Rs. 6,000/- per month. Thus, according to him the 1st respondent is not entitled to get maintenance allowance from the revision petitioner.