NARUKKAN CHIRA HAMZA, S/O (LATE) MOIDEEN KUTTY ELIYAPPATTA Vs. MANGADAN PARAMBATH SAJITHA, D/O MARAKKAR MUSALYAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the respondent in O.P.No.516 of 2010 against final order dated 28.02.2011 by the Family Court, Malappuram. The original petition had been filed by the wife of the appellant herein seeking past maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2500/- to her and Rs. 1000/- each for the minor children. A claim for return of 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments or their value and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was also sought. Though the appellant had appeared and filed objections claiming that he had been looking after his wife and children and that she had administered poison to him, which was the reason for separation and had also alleged that he had no means to pay the exorbitant maintenance claimed, the Family Court, relying on the oral evidence of the wife, had directed the return of 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its market value with interest and further directing payment of past maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2000/- to the wife and Rs. 600/- and Rs. 400/- each to two children.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is only an auto rickshaw driver and he has remarried and has other children in the subsequent marriage as well. It is contended that there was no evidence as to his capacity to pay the amounts as directed by the Family Court. It is further contended that he had returned Rs. 50,000/- to the wife by way of Demand Draft and had also entered into an agreement for conveying a part of his property to the respondent-wife. It is therefore contended that there was no justification in requiring him to return the value of gold ornaments and directing payment of exorbitant amounts of past maintenance in the absence of any evidence as to his capacity to pay such amounts.