BIJU THOMAS Vs. MARY NIRMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C. No. 260/2013 on the files of the Family court, Irinjalakuda, filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein; who are the wife and minor children of the petitioner, claiming maintenance allowance under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the 1st respondent, she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 are the children born in the said wed-lock. So, the petitioner is liable to maintain them, without interruption. But, from 2010 onwards, the petitioner neglected to maintain them and refused to pay maintenance allowance. The 1st respondent has no job or any source of income and thereby, she is unable to maintain herself and the respondents 2 and 3; whereas the petitioner is a business man earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. They claimed maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the 1st respondent and Rs. 3,000/- each per month to the respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner admitted the relationship between the parties, as claimed by the respondents; but, he denied the allegations raised against him. According to him, the 1st respondent had deserted him and left his company with the children. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 are not entitled to get maintenance allowance from the petitioner.

(2.) The main allegation levelled against the 1st respondent is that she switched over her faith and belief to the Emperor Immanuel Church, a different fraction of Christian religion. The said church does not come under the auspicious of Diocese and the believers do not recognise the encyclicals of Pope. But at the time of solemnizing the marriage, she was following the encyclicals of Pope. She changed her belief by the month of June, 2010.

(3.) It is also contended that the quantum of maintenance allowance awarded to the respondents 1 to 3 is exorbitant and disproportionate with his income. According to him, he is an autorickshaw driver only and getting Rs. 100-150/- per day only and he is liable to look after his aged parents, who are suffering from various old age diseases, which are evidenced by Exts.B8 and B9. After considering the rival pleas and evidence adduced by both parties, consists of the oral evidence of both petitioner and the 1st respondent and Exts.A1 to A4 and Exts.B1 to B11, the court below directed the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the 1st respondent and Rs. 2,000/- each per month to the respondents 2 and 3.