BHASKARAN Vs. PUSHPA AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant who is the respondent before the court below against the order of past maintenance passed in O.P.No.122/2003 of the Family Court, Kozhikode.

(2.) The original petition was filed by the wife along with the child who are the petitioners in the original petition seeking past maintenance. It is alleged in the original petition that the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 30/04/1982 and they lived together as husband and wife. They purchased 10 cents of property near their house and started residing there. In the wedlock, the 2nd petitioner was born. She is a student in CKG Memorial College. After some time, there was some strain in the relationship, on account of which they have started living separately. It is also alleged that the respondent is having illicit relation with a lady which was interfered by others. In spite of that, the respondent continued the relationship and left the house deserting the petitioners from 11/12/2000. Thereafter the respondent did not pay any maintenance to the petitioners. Since the respondent had married again during the subsistence of his marriage with the 1st petitioner, she had preferred a complaint under Section 494 I.P.C. Since the petitioners have no source of income, they had claimed for a maintenance @ Rs. 1,500/- each per month and claimed a total amount of Rs. 72,000/- at that rate for a period of 24 months.

(3.) Respondent entered appearance and admitted the marriage and paternity of the child. It is also admitted that the property was purchased and the building was constructed. He also admitted the birth of the child in the marriage. He denied the allegation of illicit relationship with another lady. He also denied the allegation that there was any ill-treatment. According to the respondent, the 1st petitioner left the company of the respondent and she is not entitled for any maintenance. According to the respondent, he is working in the Postal Department and is getting a salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The 1st petitioner is working in Kodassery Khadi Weaving Centre and earning Rs. 150/- per day. Therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. He prayed for dismissal of the petition.