LAWS(KER)-2018-6-32

ABDUL RAHEEM Vs. RAJULA E T

Decided On June 05, 2018
ABDUL RAHEEM Appellant
V/S
Rajula E T Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the 1st respondent in Original Petition No.446 of 2007 of the Family Court, Malappuram. The aforesaid Original Petition was filed by the respondents herein against the appellant herein and his brother, claiming past maintenance from the appellant herein for a period of 26 months commencing from March 2005 to May 2007 at the rate of Rs.2, 000/- to the 1st respondent and for a period of 19 months commencing from 16.10.2005 to May, 2007 at the rate of Rs.1, 000/- to the 2nd respondent and Rs.2, 10, 000/- being the value of 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments allegedly misappropriated by the 1st respondent and a sum of Rs.2, 00, 000/- being the amount allegedly given by the father of the 1st respondent to the appellant herein and Rs.35, 000/- being the value of 05 sovereigns of gold ornaments misappropriated by the brother of the appellant. Thus, the respondents had claimed a total sum of Rs.5, 16, 000/- from the appellant herein and his brother.

(2.) The appellant herein and his brother entered appearance and filed objection, denying the liability to pay past maintenance allowance to the respondents and the liability to return 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value. After considering the evidence on record, the Family Court allowed the Original Petition, directing the appellant to pay past maintenance at the rate of Rs.2, 000/- to the 1st respondent for 26 months i.e., Rs.52, 000/- and Rs.600/- to the 2nd respondent for 19 months i.e., Rs.11, 400/- Thus, the respondents were allowed to realise a total sum of Rs.63, 400/- with 9% interest from the appellant. The claim for value of gold ornaments or money was disallowed. M.C. was allowed, directing the appellant to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.2, 000/- to the 1 st respondent and Rs.600/- to the 2nd respondent per month from the date of filing the M.C. This appeal has been filed, challenging the impugned common order, directing the appellant to pay past maintenance to the respondents.

(3.) The parties are Muslims. According to the 1 st respondent, her marriage with the appellant was solemnized on 01.09.2004 and the 2nd respondent is the child born in the said wedlock. The child was aged two years at the time of filing the petition. Three months after the marriage, the marital relationship between the 1st respondent and the appellant has become strained due to the matrimonial cruelty and harassment from the part of the appellant and they were separated. Even though they united together after two months due to mediation, again they fell apart within one week. In the meantime, she had become pregnant and due to the physical torture and harassment, she was admitted in the hospital and the appellant had deserted her from March, 2005 onwards. Ever since the 1st respondent is residing separately in her parental house along with the 2nd respondent. She delivered the 2nd respondent on 16.10.2005. The appellant has not looked after or paid maintenance allowance to the 1st respondent since March, 2005 and no amount was paid so far, ever since the birth to the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent has no job or any kind of sources of income and she is depending on her parents for livelihood. On the other hand, the appellant is running a fancy store by name ' NUNU Fancy' at Thurakkal and he is having an income of Rs.15, 000/- per month. In addition to that, he is earning a considerable amount per month as an automobile broker and he is getting Rs.5, 000/- per month in that account. Appellant/1st respondent admitted the marital status and parentage of the child. He denied the averment that the respondent was having 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments, at the time of marriage and he was given Rs.2, 00, 000/- in connection with the marriage. He denied the allegation that he treated the respondent with cruelty. He has not appropriated the gold ornaments, as alleged by the respondent. The respondent was taken to her house during the seventh month of pregnancy. After the delivery, she refused to return to the matrimonial home. She is residing in her house without reasonable cause. So, he is not bound to pay maintenance allowance to the respondent. He is not having so much income as alleged by the respondent. He prayed for dismissal of the Original Petition.