VIJEESH VIJAYAN Vs. AJITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNTER petitioner in M.C. No.429/2011 on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur is the revision petitioner herein. Respondents herein filed M.C. No.429 of 2011 before the Family Court claiming maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code).

(2.) IT is alleged in the petition that, the marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent therein was solemnised on 09.08.2009 as per custom and second petitioner was born in the wedlock on 30.10.2010. On account of harassment met at the hands of the respondent and family members, she could not live in that house and she had to leave the matrimonial home and she filed a complaint before the Wadakkancherry police station and due to their intervention, it was settled earlier and they started residing together again. Again, the ill -treatment continued and she filed a complaint before the Wadakancherry police station and they registered a case. Now, she is residing in a rented house. The respondent is not paying any maintenance. There is no income of her own. The respondent is a police constable drawing '.20,000/ - per month and he is having landed properties and getting '.10,000/ - per month from the properties as well. So he is capable of providing maintenance to them but neglected to maintain them.. The first petitioner requires '.15,000/ - for her maintenance and '.4,000/ - maintenance for the child. So, the petitioner filed the application for maintenance.

(3.) FIRST petitioner and respondent was examined as PW1 and RW1 respectively and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the petitioners and D1 to D5 were marked on the side of the respondent. After considering the evidence on record, the Family Court found that the petitioners were justified in living separately and they have no income to maintain themselves and the respondent has neglected to maintain them and directed the revision petitioner to pay '.3000/ - to the first petitioner and '.1500/ - to the second petitioner as maintenance per month from the date of petition and first petitioner was allowed to withdraw the maintenance awarded to the second petitioner. Dissatisfied with the same, the present revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner.