THANARI IBRAHIM Vs. NARIKKODAN HAFSATH & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the respondent in OP 764/2007 on the files of the Family Court, Malappuram. He is the husband of the first respondent as well as the father of the respondents 2 to 4. The respondents filed the aforesaid original petition seeking past maintenance allowance to them for 22 months at the rate of Rs 3,500/- to the first respondent and Rs 1,500/- each to the respondents 2 to 4. Thus they claimed Rs 1,66,000/- as arrears of maintenance allowance from the appellant. After considering the objection filed by the appellant the family court passed the impugned order directing the appellant to pay past maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs 2,000/- to the first petitioner, Rs 1,000/- to the second petitioner, Rs 800/- to the third petitioner and Rs 600/- to the fourth petitioner per month for 22 months, totalling Rs 96,800/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the original petition till realization with cost. The legality and correctness of the said order is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) According to the respondents, the appellant is the husband of the first respondent as well as the father of respondents 2 to 4. Respondents 2 to 4 are aged 13 years, 11 years and 6 years respectively. They are living separately along with the first respondent due to the matrimonial cruelty and harassment from the part of the appellant. A criminal case is pending against the appellant and his family members for the offences punishable under Section 498A and Section 406 read with Section 34 IPC. According to them, the appellant failed to pay maintenance allowance to them for the last 22 months and he neglected them. The first respondent has no job or any sources of income, whereas the appellant is working abroad and he is having an income of Rs 75,000/- per month. He has landed properties fetching an income of Rs 1,00,000/- per year. He is not looking after or maintaining the respondents since 30.12.2005. The respondents 2 to 4 are school going children and considerable amount is required for their educational expenses. Now the respondents are depending on the parents of the first respondent for their livelihood. The appellant filed a counter statement admitting the marriage as well as the paternity of the children. But he denied the allegation that he treated the first respondent with cruelty. But he admitted that the respondents are living separately and he is not living along with them. He further contended that he is looking after and maintaining them properly and the legal proceedings were initiated at the instance of the family members of the first respondent. According to the appellant, since the respondents are being maintained by him, they are not entitled to get relief in the aforesaid original petition. He admitted that he is working abroad, but he contended that he is not doing any business abroad. According to him, he does not have any landed property fetching an income of Rs 1,00,000/- per year as alleged by the respondents. With the aforesaid averments he prayed for dismissal of the original petition.

(3.) On the aforesaid rival pleadings, both parties adduced oral evidence as PW1 and RW1 respectively. Exts A1 and A2 were marked from the part of the respondents and Exts B1 was produced and marked by the appellant.