PARAVETTI MOIDEEN Vs. POOTHAMKODAN AYSHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the husband of the 1st respondent and father of the remaining respondents. The respondents moved the family court for past maintenance for 36 months. They claimed a total amount of Rs.3, 42, 000/-. The claim was decreed to the extent of Rs.2, 01, 600/-. The said decree is challenged in appeal.

(2.) The case put forward by the respondents before the family court goes as under: It was on 21.06.1989 the marriage between the 1st respondent and the appellant took place. Four children were born in the wedlock. They are respondents 2 to 5. The spouses live separately. The children are with their mother. The reason for separate stay is the matrimonial cruelty at the end of the husband. He has been cruel to her since 13.02003. She had to file a criminal case against him since she was brutally manhandled by him. She received an information on 29.06.2007 that he pronounced talaq. But it was not a valid talaq. The respondents are entitled to past maintenance for 36 months. They are entitled to Rs.3, 42, 000/- as past maintenance; the split up being Rs.3, 500/- per month for the 1st respondent and Rs.1, 500/- per month for each of the other respondents. The appellant is working abroad on a monthly salary equal to Rs.75, 000/-

(3.) The appellant contested the case through his power of attorney holder. The power of attorney holder filed a counter-statement. The contentions go as under: There was no matrimonial cruelty or harassment on the part of the appellant. He was looking after and maintaining his wife and children. The 1st respondent was not happy with the amenities available at her matrimonial home. That was the reason why she stayed away from him. On 05.05.2007 the appellant terminated the marriage by pronouncement of talaq. The talaq was communicated to the mosque. It was thereafter the respondents left the house of the appellant. He is prepared to maintain respondents 3 to 5. The 2nd respondent has been given in marriage on 14.10.2004. Hence she is not entitled to get maintenance from her father. The appellant is not liable to provide maintenance to his divorced wife. He does not have an income of Rs.75, 000/- per month. He is employed as a cleaner in a godown in Saudi Arabia with a meagre salary of 800 riyals per month.