SHANI Vs. APPUKUTTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the petitioners in O.P.895 of 2006 on the files of the family court, Palakkad. They are the wife and son of the respondent herein. The appellants filed the above original petition under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, claiming maintenance allowance for them from the respondent. They claimed maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs 2, 000/- each. The respondent filed objection to the said petition. After considering the objection, the family court passed the impugned judgment granting maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs 750/- each per month to each appellant from 22.7.2003 to 21.8.2004. This appeal is filed challenging the inadequacy of the quantum of maintenance allowance and the denial of future maintenance allowance from the date of petition.

(2.) According to the appellants, the marriage between the 1st appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 27.5.1998 and the 2nd appellant was the son born in the said wedlock. They were living together as husband and wife till 27.5.2001. In the meantime the marital relationship between the 1st appellant and the respondent got strained and they set apart and started to live separately from 27.5.2001 onwards. According to the appellants after 27.5.2001, the respondent has not made any enquiry about the appellants and he did not pay any amount to meet their daily expenses. The 1st appellant has no job or any sources of income to meet the expenses of herself and the 2nd appellant. The 2nd appellant was aged three years at the time of filing the suit. Thus according to the 1st appellant, she is unable to maintain herself and the 2nd appellant. On the other hand, the respondent is employed in a spinning mill by name 'Precot Mill' at Kanjikode and he is getting a salary of Rs 6, 000/- per month. That apart, his father had five acres of paddy land and another ten cents of property and a house therein. After the death of his father, the respondent has one-fifth right in the said property. Even though the property stands in the joint ownership, the property is actually in the possession of the respondent and he is taking yields from the said property. He is getting an average income of Rs 2, 00, 000/- per year from the aforesaid landed property. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs 2, 000/- each per month.

(3.) The respondent filed a written statement denying the allegation that he neglected to maintain them from 27.5.2001 onwards. According to him, the allegation that he is having a salary of Rs 6, 000/- per month from Precot mills, Kanjicode is not true. In fact, he had a temporary employment in the said firm. He denied the averments that he is getting an average yearly income of Rs 2, 00, 000/- from the family property. According to him, he did not have a single cent of property of his own in his name. Now he is employed as an auto driver by profession and he is running the auto for daily wages and getting Rs 50/- only per day. Out of this amount he has to look after his ailing mother and also has to give money to the plaintiff as and when he visits her.