PRADEEP Vs. SHEEBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C. No.237 of 2010 on the files of the Family Court, Thrissur. The petitioner is directed to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per mensem to the respondent by the impugned order passed in the above M.C. The legality of the entitlement of the maintenance allowance and the correctness of the quantum of amount determined by the court below are under challenge in this Revision Petition.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly point out that in the year 2010, when the Maintenance Case was filed, the respondent was actually employed and she was able enough to maintain herself and the same stands proved by Exts. A6 to A11. Therefore, she was not entitled to get maintenance allowance on an application which was filed at the time when she was employed as a Teacher. The learned counsel further clarifies that even if she has lost the said job during the pendency of the proceedings, she is not entitled to get the maintenance allowance on the application which was filed at the time when she was employed as she was able enough to maintain herself, at that time.