PREMAN Vs. SHEEJA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order in M.C. No. 212/2011 dated 11.1.2013 of Family Court, Vatakara. The respondents herein are respectively the wife and son of the revisionist and they filed M.C. No. 212/2011 under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from the revision petitioner. It is filed contending that the revision petitioner is capable of maintaining them and he neglects to maintain them. It is contended by them that the revision petitioner is a collection agent in Perambra Regional Co -operative Bank and he is also getting an income by taking classes in a parallel college. The revision petitioner entered appearance and resisted the claim of the respondents. Evidently, he took up the contentions that the first respondent is refusing to live with him without any sufficient cause and that he is not getting Rs.13,000/ - as income as alleged by the first respondent. He denied the allegation that he is taking classes and getting income from a parallel college. The first respondent was examined as PW1 and on her side Exts.A1 to A5(a) were marked. The revision petitioner got himself examined as RW1 but no documentary evidence was adduced on his side. After evaluation of the evidence on record as mentioned above, the family court found that the revision petitioner is liable to maintain the respondents and consequently fixed Rs.3,000/ - and Rs.2,000/ - as monthly maintenance payable respectively to the first and second respondent. This revision petitioner is filed against the said order.

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