RAFEEQ Vs. SUMMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.120/13 on the files of the Family Court, Ernakulam, filed by the respondents herein, who are the wife and son of the petitioner, claiming maintenance allowance from the revision petitioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the 1st respondent, she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is the son born in that wedlock. Though they are legally entitled to get maintenance allowance from the petitioner, he has neglected them and refused to pay maintenance allowance from 21.03.2012 onwards. According to the 1st respondent, she has no job or any other sources of income; but the petitioner is doing business and earning Rs. 30,000/- per month.

(2.) The petitioner admitted the relationship between the parties as claimed by the respondents. But, he denied the liability to pay maintenance allowance to the respondents on the sole ground that he is suffering from 60% permanent disability. He has no sources of income and he is not doing business and earning Rs. 30,000/- per month as claimed by the respondents. It is also contended that the quantum of maintenance allowance fixed by the court below is excessive and disproportionate. After considering the evidence on record, the court below directed the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance @Rs. 3,000/- each to the respondents. The legality of the entitlement of maintenance allowance and the correctness of the quantum are under challenge in this revision petition.

(3.) The marital status of the 1st respondent and paternity of the 2nd respondent are not disputed. The sole question that arises for consideration is, whether the petitioner can be exempted from discharging his statutory liability, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the ground that he is physically disabled at 60%