LAWS(KER)-2018-6-583

PARAKKOTTU ABDUL HAMEED Vs. VARANGODAN RAMLA NAFEESA

Decided On June 19, 2018
Parakkottu Abdul Hameed Appellant
V/S
Varangodan Ramla Nafeesa Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforementioned Mat. Appeals have been filed, challenging a common judgment passed in Original Petition No. 261 of 2009 and M.C. No. 184 of 2009. The aforesaid Original Petition and M.C. were filed by the appellant in Mat.Appeal No. 972 of 2010. The appellant in Mat.Appeal No. 972 of 2010 is the wife of the appellant in Mat. Appeal No. 777 of 2010. The parties are referred to as in the Original Petition.

(2.) The petitioner/wife filed Original Petition No. 261 of 2009, seeking an order directing the respondent/husband to pay past maintenance for 36 months from 25.03.2006 totalling Rs. 1,80,000/- at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month. According to the averments in the Original Petition, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 13.05.1990 and they lived together as husband and wife in the matrimonial home till 20.10.2008 and thereafter, she has been residing separately in the parental house along with her mother. The said Original Petition was filed on 25.03.2009. She claimed maintenance allowance for the past three years from 25.03.2006 to 25.03.2009. At the time of marriage, the respondent was working abroad and he has given maintenance allowance to her till 25.03.2006 only. In the meantime, their marital relationship has become strained and the respondent stopped payment of maintenance allowance. On 26.11.2006, he married another lady by name 'Sakeena'; but the petitioner continued to reside in the matrimonial home and all her needs were met by her mother. Eventually, her mother had taken her to her house on 20.10.2008. Thus, they are residing separately from 20.06.2008. He has not paid any amount towards her maintenance allowance after 25.03.2006. She has no job or any sources of income. But, the respondent was employed abroad and earned huge wealth from the gulf country. The respondent is an able bodied man having sufficient earning capacity. On the other hand, the petitioner is unable to maintain herself. Therefore, she is entitled to get past maintenance for 36 months from 25.03.2006 to 25.03.2009 at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month.

(3.) The respondent objected the said claim for past maintenance allowance and contended that he was paying maintenance allowance, while she was residing in his house till 20.10.2008 and thereafter, he had been paying maintenance allowance to meet her expenses and there is no default in payment of maintenance allowance. He denied the allegation that he has earned huge wealth from gulf country. According to him, he lost his employment abroad and he cannot go back to that foreign country for five years. He has also contended that the quantum of maintenance allowance claimed by the petitioner is exorbitant. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Original Petition.