A. PHILIP Vs. LIZY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE counter petitioner in M.C. No. 17/11 on the file of the Family Court, Kottarakkara is the revision petitioner herein. The application for maintenance was filed by the respondent herein against the revision petitioner claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/ - per month. It is alleged in the petition that the respondent married the revision petitioner on 16.2.1984 and thereafter they lived together as husband and wife in the joint property held by them and from 30.8.2010 he had neglected to maintain her. She has no job and no independent income to maintain herself. She is depending her mother for her livelihood. The revision petitioner is working in Railway Protection Force and getting Rs. 30,000/ - per month and he also getting Rs. 10,000/ - per month as agricultural income as well. She requires Rs. 6,000/ - for her medical expenses and Rs. 4,000/ - for her maintenance. He is having sufficient income to pay the same. In spite of that, he is not paying the amount. So, she filed the application claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/ - per month.

(2.) RESPONDENT filed counter affidavit admitting the marriage but denier the allegation that he deserted her on 30.8.2010. He is working in Railway Protection Force on 30.8.2010. The respondent herein informed over phone that she is going to her family house along with her daughter and thereafter she did not return. She is now residing with her mother and siblings. He filed O.P. No. 972/2010 for restitution of conjugal rights and that petition was later withdrawn though the respondent did not appear in that case. He had deposited Rs. 3 lakhs in the bank in the name of the respondent, which she had withdrawn from the bank. The allegation of cruelty etc. are denied. He is looking after them within his limit. She is not entitled to get any maintenance. So, he prayed for dismissal of the application.

(3.) THE counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that even in the petition, her claim for maintenance is only Rs. 4,000/ - and Rs. 6,000/ - was claimed for her medical expenses. Further, it was admitted by her that the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs deposited by him in the name of the petitioner was withdrawn by her and if it was deposited in a long term deposit, the interest earned would have been sufficient for her maintenance. Further, he is not having the income mentioned and she had left the house voluntarily and these aspects have not been properly considered.