KOLLOLI MUJEEB @ MAJEED Vs. NASEEBA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the respondent in O.P 608/2006 and MC 621/2006 of the Family Court, Malappuram. The respondents 1 and 2 are the wife and daughter of the appellant. The above original petition was filed by the respondents herein seeking past maintenance allowance and MC 621/2006 was filed by the respondents claiming future maintenance allowance under section 125 of the Cr.P.C , 1973at the rate of Rs 3,500/- to the first respondent and Rs 1,500/- to the second respondent. According to the respondents, the appellant treated the first respondent with cruelty and when it became intolerable she was compelled to live separately along with the second respondent. The first respondent had preferred a criminal complaint before the Magistrate Court against the appellant alleging offence punishable under Section 498 A of IPC and the same was pending. Eventually the appellant deserted the respondents on 15.2.2004 and thereafter he neglected them and he did not pay any amount towards maintenance allowance. Now, the appellant is doing a business abroad. He has his own ice-cream parlour in Gulf country and he is getting an income of Rs 30,000/- per month. That apart, he has 7 1/2 cents of landed property. Thus, he has sufficient means to pay maintenance allowance to the respondents; whereas, the first respondent has no sources of income and the second respondent is aged 2 1/2 years. The first respondent is unable to maintain herself and the second respondent. The appellant is liable to pay maintenance allowance to the respondents as his wife and only child.

(2.) The appellant resisted the claim for maintenance allowance in OP and MC contending that he divorced the first respondent herein on 19.11.2006 by pronouncing 'Talaqu' and till the date of 'Talaqu' he looked after the petitioners (respondents herein) with proper care. He does not have any business or employment abroad. He is a labourer in Gulf with 100 riyals as salary per month. Hence he prayed for dismissal of both original petition and MC.

(3.) On the aforesaid contentions, both parties adduced evidence which consists of oral testimony of PWs 1 and 2, RWs 1 to 3 and Exts A1 to A4 and B1 to B4 were marked. After considering the aforesaid evidence on record, the Family Court allowed both original petition and MC granting past and future maintenance allowance in both proceedings at the rate of Rs 2000/- to the first petitioner and Rs 1,000/- to the second petitioner. The legality and correctness of the common order granting past and future maintenance allowance are challenged in these Mat. Appeal and RPFC.