THUNDIYIL NAZEER Vs. PARAMBATH VYSIAMBATH MAJINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed against the order dated 24.1.2012 in M.C. No. 3 of 2011 of Family Court, Thalassery. The respondent herein moved M.C. No. 3 of 2011 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from the revision petitioner herein. That maintenance case was tried along with O.P. No. 3 of 2011. The respondent herein got herself examined as PW1 and got marked Exts.A1 to A5 to substantiate her claim for maintenance. On the side of the revision petitioner he was examined as RW1 and M/s. Ashraf and A.P. Abdul Kader were respectively examined as RW2 and RW3 and Exts.B1 and B2 were also got marked. On evaluation of the evidence on record the Family Court found that the revision petitioner is liable to maintain the respondent herein and based on such finding the Family Court proceeded to fix the quantum of maintenance. Taking into account the various aspects the Family Court fixed Rs. 2,000/ - as the monthly maintenance. This revision petition is filed against the said judgment in M.C. No. 3 of 2011 passed by the Family Court.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(3.) NOW , what survives for consideration is whether the fixation of monthly maintenance by the Family Court invites any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Taking into account the cost of living by no stretch of the imagination it can be said that the amount thus fixed by the Family Court is exorbitant warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. The amount fixed is only Rs. 2000/ -. In the said circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the amount fixed by the Family Court as monthly maintenance payable to the respondent by the revision petitioner. At the same time, it is evident that the Family Court has passed an order in O.P. No. 3 of 2011 holding that the respondent is liable to pay past maintenance from 18.6.2006 to 18.6.2009 and in the order passed in the M.C. the revision petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 2000/ - per month to the respondent as maintenance from the date of filing of the M.C. The judgment itself would reveal that the M.C. was filed on 24.1.2009. Thus, it is obvious that there is an overlapping of the period. As noticed hereinbefore, the revision petitioner herein was directed to pay past maintenance from 18.6.2006 to 18.6.2009 and at the same, as per the order in the M.C. he was directed to pay maintenance from the date of filing of the M.C. that is, from 24.1.2009. Thus, the period of overlapping is from 24.1.2009 to 18.6.2009. In the said circumstances, even while confirming the order passed by the Family Court in the M.C. holding the revision petitioner liable to pay maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 2000/ - it requires modification. Taking into account the said aspect and while retaining the order in M.C. holding the revision petitioner liable to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2000/ - he is directed to pay maintenance at that rate only from 19.6.2009.