PRAMEELA Vs. GOVINDAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already relinquished Vakkalath and sent a letter to the petitioner; but she has not responded so far. In the absence of another lawyer, who is authorised to represent the petitioner, I am constrained to dispose of the case on merits, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka, 2013 3 SCC 721.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the petitioner in M.C. No. 34 of 2008 on the files of the Family Court, Kasaragod. The above M.C. was filed against her husband, the respondent herein, claiming maintenance allowance under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to her, she is residing separately due to the marital discordency which culminated in separation and thereafter, the respondent has not maintained her and refused to pay maintenance allowance to her. They lived together for three decades and children were born in that wed-lock. At the time when the M.C. was filed, the petitioner was aged 52 years and the respondent was aged 62 years. All the children are majors. According to the petitioner, the respondent had been cruel to her from the very beginning of their matrimony and when she found it difficult to live along with the respondent, she was constrained to reside separately, though she is unable to maintain herself. She has no job or income. On the other hand, the respondent has 91 cents of garden land and certain shop rooms also in his landed property. She claimed an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per mensem as maintenance allowance.

(3.) Per contra, the respondent contended that though he has 91 cents of garden land, the income being appropriated by the petitioner. She own cows and earns Rs. 7,500/- per mensem by selling milk. The garden land having an extent of 5 acres and 72 cents is another source of her income.